Please keep doing those in-depth, scholarly series (Intro to Christology etc.). It's one reason I love your channel: you never do click bait, you never try to please the crowd at the expense of substance. That makes your channel a rare gold mine.
Thanks for the video Dr. Cooper. As an evangelical catholic "Lutheran" I am really looking forward to the publishing of the Lutheran Missal project. I really do appreciate the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on praxis in theosis. I suspect that as Lutherans fled Europe, during the Enlightenment and into the 19th century, much good and wholesome western catholic praxis has been lost to us or shelved. Many pastors and parishes are working to gradually recover forgotten traditions. I believe this is a positive development. Having the "right" systematics is great, but we need to also be formed by more and better praxis. I look forward to the printing of these materials and rediscovering our western heritage. God's blessings to all His children, both East and West.
To the Orthodox people in the comments: thank you for being so charitable and thoughtful in your responses. Online theology discussions rarely go beyond dunking on one’s opponents, and it’s a nice change of pace to see this.
I was LCMS for about a decade before becoming Orthodox. On the end of Orthodox spirituality for converts, my priest taught me that it is important to see the good in the tradition one comes from, and not to lash out against it and revile it in the heart, that the former confession has exceptional qualities which helped to direct him towards the Orthodox Church. Internet outrage culture and the "Orthobro" phenomenon are hardly distinguishable past the thin veil of Christianity claimed by the latter; they share the same noxious spirit. Anger is a snare used by the enemy to drag many through the gates of hades.
As a former Evangelical, Lutheran, and Reformed believer who became Eastern Orthodox, my advice to inquirers would be (1) do not waste 30-years (like I did) comparing and picking one that makes sense to you-your perspective will change and you will jump from one path to the other and never really know the truth; (2) traditions did not all develop side-by-side, they have different starting points, so look at which ones have been consistently the same for the longest because the truth does not change; and (3) Christ Himself says “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” John 17:3. Only in Orthodoxy have I begun to understanding that “knowing God” is more than head knowledge and trying to be a good Christian; God opens Himself to us only when we love Him with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves. I fall way short (Lord have mercy), but have been blessed with glimpses of our true calling in our Liturgies and my life as an Orthodox Christian.
As an Orthodox Christian I really didn't find the language about substitution and satisfaction to be objectionable. I think we really just recoil at the use of the punitive language towards Christ's sacrifice. Our focus is on Christ's willing offering of Himself for sin being the key factor rather than the satisfaction of divine wrath.
How do you handle texts like Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 where Christ's sacrifice is referred to as a "propitiation" (ἱλαστήριον/ἱλασμός)? Also, if the unjustified are under God's wrath, but then Christ dies in their place in order to deliver them from punishment (Hell) and "reconcile" them to God, doesn't this sort of imply that Christ's sacrifice was punitive and wrath-averting?
@@michael6549 Why does God not have the power to forgive sin unless someone dies? Is God beholden to some kind of natural law that supersedes even the power of God? I mean that’s the main criticism that I would initially throw out at PSA theory. But even more importantly I think we have to be careful here not to separate Christ and God the Father. There is one divine will. Therefore it is appropriate to say that Christ took on not the “Father’s” wrath, but God’s wrath. In other words, Jesus took his own wrath upon himself. That doesn’t make a lot of sense if you take the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to be an appeasement of an angry God. Jesus had to kill…. Himself? To appease… Himself? That makes no sense. Rather, I appreciate how St. Ambrose comments on this passage which I think illustrates well what the early church taught and I have quoted here: “Paul says this, because in Christ God put forward, i.e., appointed, himself as a future expiation for the human race if they believed. This expiation was by his blood. We have been set free by his death so that God might reveal him and condemn death by his passion.” Christs sacrifice serves as an atonement to break the power of death through his perfect righteousness which we can receive to cover for our sin that all the faithful both past and present can receive through their faith. Just like the Passover lamb did for the Jews during the exodus. That’s why in every language other than English “Easter” is called “Passover”. Throughout the scriptures the term “wrath” is used to describe God’s judgement of sin, but don’t forget that this is an imperfect word attempting to describe a divine attribute. The takeaway isn’t that God experiences anger just like us humans do, it’s that sin has no place in Gods kingdom.
@@harrygarris6921 Expiation and propitiation are two different things. The one deals with forgiveness, the other with the averting of wrath. Also, there's that whole thing about us being once "children of wrath" but then, after Christ's death, being reconciled to God. Doesn't that imply that Christ's death averted God's wrath? There are a lot of things about God's character that I don't fully understand. I don't understand how God can be merciful and wrathful at the same time. Yet if I want to be faithful to God I can't simply deny that God is wrathful. Yes, I understand that some see these aspects of God's character as "anthropomorphisms". An interesting early writing to consider is Lactantius' On the Wrath of God. If I recall correctly, he rejects the whole anthropomorphism explanation.
@@michael6549 I think we can look to the Old Testament rituals that God instituted for the Israelites for examples of non-penal substation. On the day of atonement the Israelite high priest did kill a lamb and sprinkle the blood on the people to symbolize an atonement for sin, but it’s not because their sins were placed on the lamb to die in their stead, the lamb was innocent and died a righteous death. The blood of the uncorrupted lamb “covered” sin rather than “paying” for it. There was a sin offering of a goat as well, but the goat was not slain. It was led out of the camp into the wilderness after the Israelites sin was symbolically placed upon it. Christ is a fulfillment of this original covenant that God made with his people. I think that’s why we can look to the OT for instruction on what atonement is. The penal substitution theory not only ignores the precedent set up by the old covenant, but comes out of some really wacky and (in my opinion) misguided midieval European philosophy rather than being biblically based.
Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics both agree on Chrit's willing offering of Himself for sin being the key factor rather than the satisfaction of divine wrath. Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics alike believe the formal cause of justification is the infusion of sanctifying grace INTO the believer. For Martin Luther (and the rest of XVI century Protestants) the formal cause of justification is the foral imputation of Christ's righteousness (extra-nos). The idea of infused sanctifying grace as the formal cause of our justification is what is most in line with the Tradition of the Early Church and the Bible. Luther's position of the extrinsic imputation of Christ's very own righteousness was a complete novelty to the XVI Century "Reformation". Both St Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
It helps to get good first hand info. I visited orthodox churches and talked to priest and parishioners after at coffee and biscuit time. I learned a lot which I couldn't have learned from Wikipedia or my former own Church. I keep telling Catholics and Orthodox that Traditional Lutheran is way closer to them than protestant churches. We aren't really protestants. We have the creeds, liturgy, real presence, crosses and crucifixes, vestments and no female pastors. Like Catholics we enjoy good music with our hymns, and I would miss that in Orthodox churches. I love the iconography though and if there wasn't Lutheran or Catholic I'd be going to Orthodox. We have Serbian, Greek, Romanian and Assyrian and Coptic Church in the region. Not bad for a small city. When I was in city I was having a bnb almost next to the Armenian Church, I really wanted to visit but didn't have time
Orthodox have historically had no issues with Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory of atonement. It is in fact affirmed by post-schism Orthodox Fathers such as St. Nicholas Cabasilas (d. 1392) in his famous work The Life in Christ, St. Philaret of Chernigov's (d.1866) Dogmatic Theology, and St. Nektarios of Aegina's (d. 1920) Catechism. This is from St. Nektarios on the Atonement: "In His capacity as the great High Priest, the Savior offered Himself up as a spotless sacrifice to His God and Father, an atoning sacrifice; He was both the officiator and the sacrifice, propitiating and satisfying the justice of God which threatened humanity because of transgressing the divine law; He paid the whole penalty as a sinless representative of the human race before God the Father; the punishment that sinful man deserved He bore on the cross, shedding His precious blood for our salvation and sealing the New Covenant, which He made with the Father, and which offers salvation to everyone who believes in Him, confessing that His death on the cross made atonement."
what you present is only a segment of orthodox theology. don't forget that orthodox theology is mystical. and mysticism is based on the understanding of salvation in Christ as the healing of soul powers distorted by the work of sin and the loss of grace. so what you present is a theology of the cross ... a place where you should be careful, as westerners, not to come with your preconceptions about the theology of the cross from the west. even the theology of the cross is still a theology of healing in Orthodox theology, this is best seen in the services during Lent and in all the services related to Easter. be careful with your own preconceptions so as not to cause confusion.
I wonder how different St Nectarios' personal view is from that of the general modern Reformed view of PSA though? ... I must explore! My guess is that the Anselmian theory influenced many in certain ways and at certain times post schism, but that the view of the provision and offering of God Himself "for us" as our substitute (which no trinitarian denies) had a generally differing "flavour""emphasis" to say, the 4th century Greek Fathers than a modern Protestant. God is certainly not torturing God. Though He predetermined the Cross, we and the demons are most certainly doing our very worst - as His rightness fulfills, disarms, destroys and unites with us... dying our death that we may escape the wrath to come as we rise in Him.
@@eui6037 How is eastern orthodoxy "mystical"? It seems more physical. Mysticism, in my imagination, would be more like for example, opening a window to heaven in thin air. Eastern Orthodoxy paints ugly pictures that a preschooler can do better, then they kiss and worship their drawings and say that the drawings are windows to heaven. That seems more like lack of anything mystical. The extreme opposite of mysticism...
St Athanasius does say in the letter to Marcillanius from a Psalter for prayer: He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression.
I appreciate that you gently point out how many Orthodox Writers can write an 800+ Page commentary on one verse. As a Latin, that is one of my critiques of the EO Church.
Coming from an Orthodox point of view, I found this video really frustrating, primarily because I thought the Orthodox essay being responded to was so bad. It's unfortunate that in the anglophone world there's an unbalanced, largely reactionary (ie. defined negatively by the Western confessions it opposes) variant of Orthodoxy that doesn't really properly represent what the Orthodox church really is. It means that a video like this never really comes to grips with the Orthodox church as it is, but it's hard to fault people for responding to what are (unfortunately) the popular Orthodox polemics in the anglophone world. It is true that the Orthodox approach soteriology in a way that de-emphasizes the legal aspect, and I think that's appropriate and faithful to Scripture. But it throws everything out if perspective when this turns into just ignoring legal categories altogether. It's worth noting that Patriarch Jeremias never did this in his correspondence with the Lutheran theologians.
As an aside, it's definitely not true that Orthodox Christians don't talk about justification, although it is true that the actual word "justification" isn't used much except when directly commenting on Scripture. But the theme of the forgiveness of sins is pretty ubiquitous in the liturgical prayer of the church, which in the Orthodox church is seen as one of the primary witnesses to the Church's dogma.
I am not a Lutheran but Dr. Jordon's explanation of the atonement is right on. The legal implications that existed between God and man had to be satisfied before we could ever experience God in Christ on a personal level. Thank you for this wonderful exposition.
Ex Orthodox here. I didn't get it either, and I suspect most of the folks in my former congregation did either. I don't say this in a disparaging way- they were kind and decent people, but the emphasis was absolutely more on doing the right stuff that we were very proud had always been done that way and everyone else was different. Once I started feeling like I was boasting in my works, I sought out a Lutheran Pastor and I've been in the LCMS since. That's a few years now anyway.
How do you know the Lutheran Church is the correct one, as opposed to any other Protestant branch? You understand it is good to be doing the things that have always been done, yes? Even Paul said he commended the Corinthians for persisting in the traditions exactly as he had delivered them to them.
Wow Dr. Cooper, I really enjoyed this episode of Just and Sinner as I think there is a need to hear about Eastern Orthodoxy from a historically rooted Protestant point of view. Every time I watch your channel I learn so much about church history and the Fathers from a Protestant perspective. Prayers and blessings from a Wesleyan Pentecostal fan!
Dear Jordan, I watch/listen to most of your videos. I absolutely love the in-depth video on tough theological topics that you make. While it is tempting to give in to people's short attention spans, you do something good for all of us when you engage with deep thinking. I like the format of you simply taking through things like you do. That said, I think you can make some of your videos a bit more accessible. One small thing: I notice that when you speak, you end a lot of your sentences before you get to the final period. It kinda sounds like you keep getting new thoughts that you want to interject. Sometimes this is fine. Sometimes it all ends up getting convoluted. Your video here is one hour long. But there are no timestamps or outline given. One idea might simple be to give people some kind of handout with an outline of what you will be talking about. Then refer back to that as you start a new point. This can also help with summarizing your main points. So, if people get lost 20 min into the video, they can reconnect when you summarize and "reset". Some of this may require more editing than you have time for. I hope this makes a bit of sense.
Thanks. It really is just a matter of time more than anything else. I put a lot of prep into these podcasts, and it's hard to find time to do extensive outlines along with everything else. I have thought through doing more powerpoint presentations like I do in the Makers of the Modern World series.
I’m Orthodox and I would NEVER reject the forensic and substitutionary aspect of Christs work on the cross. I’d agree that there are many many many orthodox who reject the forensic nature of Christs work because they want to separate themselves from the west. I’d say this usually comes from western converts who are trying to run away from legalism. However, it’s not Orthodox to reject the forensic nature of Christs work.
I would express our view through the lens of St Paul who preaches and quoted from The Exodus. Christ is the paschal lamb. He redeems all creation by His work. The righteous and unrighteous are reconciled to God by the work of Christ. Yes we punished Him, yes it pleased the Father to see Him punished as such. By the work of the suffering servant we are reconciled to God, all things are reconciled. Not one iota will He lose. Christ receives His inheritance and we who are freed by the blood of the lamb walk in obedience according to His laws, sustained by His body and blood, healed by His work until in obedience we attain the promised land. For those who reject Him, they too will be resurrected and being in a resurrected incorruptible body cannot change their inclinations, being opposed to God, they are resurrected opposed to God eternally. We are asked to choose life or death. We will be judged if we are resurrected in opposition to Him and being incorruptible will remain forever in torment. By our own choosing. I would also say that we view this walk as eternal, never will our walk to holiness ever end. The ladder of divine ascent is infinite because Gods love is infinite. I’d also say that we are to ascend the ladder with the Holy Spirit guiding us. We do not walk alone, we must participate in the work in Christ. The difference as far as I can tell from the Lutheran position is this. Lutherans as far as I can tell set up the law vs Christ. But this I dont believe is St Pauls view. St Paul views Christ as defeating death and sees us passing from the dominion of the sin, death and the law to the dominion of Christ, life and grace. Having being reconciled by the work of Christ, we are in the kingdom of the Lord, we are baptized into His Body, united to Him, given the decalogue, we walk in obedience to Christs law on the path prepared for us sustained by His Body and Blood and healed by His cross since we will stumble and fall, transformed by this walk with the Lord until we attain the promised land. So this whole justification by faith alone concept makes little sense to us since the transformation occurs in a living relationship with Christ and we in the end can be judged by the Lord EVEN in the camp for disobeying Him (those He never knew, the workers of unrighteousness).
@@EricAlHarb Lutherans believe in distinction between law and Gospel we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine, in which the righteous, immutable will of God is revealed, what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God; and it threatens its transgressors with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments. For as Luther writes against the law-stormers [Antinomians]: Everything that reproves sin is and belongs to the Law, whose peculiar office it is to reprove sin and to lead to the knowledge of sins, Rom. 3:20,7:7; and as unbelief is the root and well-spring of all reprehensible sins [all sins that must be censured and reproved], the Law reproves unbelief also. 18 However, this is true likewise that the Law with its doctrine is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; and nevertheless it remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works. 19 Thus, the Law reproves unbelief, [namely,] when men do not believe the Word of God. Now, since the Gospel, which alone properly teaches and commands to believe in Christ, is God’s Word, the Holy Ghost, through the office of the Law, also reproves unbelief, that men do not believe in Christ, although it is properly the Gospel alone which teaches concerning saving faith in Christ. Therefore every penitent sinner ought to believe, that is, place his confidence in the Lord Christ alone, that He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25, that He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5:21, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30, whose obedience is counted to us for righteousness before God’s strict tribunal, so that the Law, as above set forth, is a ministration that kills through the letter and preaches condemnation, 2 Cor. 3:7, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, Rom. 1:16, that preaches righteousness and gives the Spirit, 1 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 3:2. As Dr. Luther has urged this distinction with especial diligence in nearly all his writings, and has properly shown that the knowledge of God derived from the Gospel is far different from that which is taught and learned from the Law, because even the heathen to a certain extent had a knowledge of God from the natural law, although they neither knew Him aright nor glorified Him aright, Rom. 1:20f.
@@th3manbatista yes that's a good explanation of your understanding of forensic justification. Our view is different in that Christ redeems all things, all of creation by His work. So all things pass from death, from spiritual Egypt to life, but now we must participate in Christ's work to live or we will by judged unworthy. So all creation is judged worthy by the work of Christ. There is the language of justification there. Ephesians 2 is absolutely an eschatological passage. Not merely believers. Our salvation is the ultimately based on our participation after Christs work of setting us free. So yes we are declared worthy BUT so is the disbeliever in terms of Christs work to reconcile the world. He too is resurrected by the work of Christ. It's in our participation of being conformed to His image that we are ultimately saved.
If you accept Scripture teaches the forensic and substitutionary aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ work on the Christ, that would appear to be in contradiction to the practice and beliefs of the various Eastern Orthodox organizations that exist today.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Not at all, as I pointed out we do believe that Christ is a substitution for us in humanity (God will provide the sacrifice). What I think we would disagree with is that Christ is substituted for us individually. The reason I say this is because when we talk about the substitution of Christ we talk about it in terms of humanity, so the Son takes on a universal human nature and takes the penalty of death that we mete out to Him. So Christ is the only perfect human who qualifies to be a worthy offering to God of humanity, and that is how we are reconciled by His work i.e. suffering the penalty of death (thereby being our offering to God, by us killing the Lamb that could not die naturally). BUT This work is taken on for all creation! It is by this work that all creation is reconciled to God and all creation goes from the dominion of death to the dominion of Christ himself who defeating sickness, corruption and death for all creation, is King of all. This is very very very different from the protestant understanding where Christ stands in place for every individual believer. In fact I am uncertain that this notion of Christ being substituted for an individual believer can be supported by the totality of scripture. Even if you are sola scriptura, the only consistent reading of the text is to see our salvation as modelled on the Exodus which is what the Orthodox Church teaches. I think it is a word concept fallacy to assume that when St. Paul or any of the church fathers speak of substitution or penalty or justification they mean what protestants understand today. I reject the protestant understanding of justification, substitution and penalty. In essence I claim these words and their meanings for Orthodoxy. I agree with the understanding of the Church, which has been taught from the beginning and can be seen from genesis to revelation.
I'm a former nondenom evangelical, and your videos helped me decide to become Lutheran instead of Eastern Orthodox, and I'm soon to be confirmed into the LCMS. Thanks for your videos! PS: Love your Christology series too lol
I too am a former nondenom evangelical, but I just recently became an Orthodox Catechumen. The book “Rock and Sand” by Fr. Josiah Trenham was probably the biggest influence on my decision. If you ever find yourself curious about how Orthodox Christians view Lutheranism, I highly recommend this book! May God bless you
I greatly appreciate this video, I have been inquiring into the Orthodox church off and on for a few years now. After attending Divine Liturgy I was blown away by the beauty of it all and wanted to begin catechism but have been met with barriers due to the distance of the churches being an hour away and the long process of confirmation. But lately I've been interested in Lutheranism. Now I am attending a local lcms Lutheran church and find myself at a cross roads.
Remember that God looks at the heart, not the denomination you choose. In the end if you repent, put your faith in Christ, are baptized and live to love God and your neighbor then you're on the right track. Don't stress over what tradition you're gonna belong to because in the end when Christ returns there will be one church which in reality will be a culmination of believers from Roman catholic, orthodox, and Protestant faiths. He knows his sheep.
I've been inquiring into Orthodoxy as well for the last few months and even attended a Divine Liturgy once in a trip (I live far away from both Lutheran and orthodox churches), but ultimately the doubts about where I should belong are consuming me. I feel pushed by my ortho friends and at the same time attracted to Lutheranism, and I don't know where I should go. What if I make a wrong decision? Ultimately I'm giving myself a good amount of time studying both traditions and when the time for decision comes (ie when I can attend a parish at least once a week) I pray the Holy Spirit will guide me, not people's opinions. Your message touched my heart as I was listening to this lecture as a way to give myself some peace in my heart. Thanks and God bless you! @@ninjason57
Thanks for doing this, it is valuable to have a Lutheran view of other traditions. I also enjoyed the Scholastic Lutherans channel doing a review of the debate between Seraphim Hamilton (EO) and Anthony Rogers (Reformed). Seraphim had to get creative with scripture, but ultimately his theosis argument isn't something Lutherans would necessarily disagree with or that would refute PSA.
I attended a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for many years and I enjoyed it. Eventually I felt the Call to rejoin the Faith of my birth, Eastern Orthodoxy and have been a member for almost 2 decades. IMO, some of the more conservative Protestant denominations do a great job bringing the Word to their members. But, the embracing of abominations by other Protestant denominations has been instrumental is decreasing their membership and encouraging members to seek alternatives who abide by The Word. If it feels wrong to people, it probably is. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church has done an admirable job fighting these 'trends', but other Lutheran denominations not so much. Protestantism in general is decreasing in membership by the direction some of their leadership are taking, people seek the rock-solid and Biblical values to build their personal foundation on. All are welcome in Orthodoxy, if they are seeking a Biblical answer!
While that is true in a Protestant majority country like the United States, where there is a lot of nominalism (and worse), I really wonder about places where the Orthodox Church is the state religion like in Romania for example. On paper it’s 85% Orthodox but there’s actually a lot of nominalism going on even though it’s under one church.
People who leave Lutheran Churches do so because they are no longer Lutheran. We still follow our old pastor on TH-cam. We live in a foreign country and there are no Lutheran churches. When in the US we did toy with the idea of joining an Eastern Orthodox Church. I do like the Vespers and the ornate interiors and the Reverence of their worship services I found the sermons were very Christ centered. But when I looked tnto joining I had a conversation on theology with a Bishop. We didn't get beyond Baptism. In the end he called me a Protestant, in a nice way. But clearly there are a lot of differences.
@@orthodoxbox7004I would never join the Orthodox Church as long as they reject the validity of my Lutheran trinitarian Baptism. Orthodox are like Baptists and Pentecostals in asking me to get rebaptized. I wasn't an atheist all my life. I'm a Lutheran Christian not a Catechumen , not a Christian in training. So if there's no Lutheran Church it would be Rome for me. Even though I have to skip the filioque every time there's a Niceene creed. Solution? Use the Apsotles creed. Oh wait....Orthodox don't like that. And don't like hymns. And I had to lie about fasting. And I'll never have Christmas with my friends....etc
It has grown very tiring in these inter-denominational / tradition dialogues to hear from one side or the other “this is the only way to understand” X, Y, or Z. As Dr. Cooper notes, there can be more than one valid way to understand many such matters. More than one thing can be true in the understanding. I am reminded of a line by CS Lewis from Mere Christianity: “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.” In this example, it is the “somehow” that is the point of contention, but there can be more than one right answer, more than one effect. God is infinite, and much of His work is not really comprehensible to us. Why we think we can put His work in such tidy, humanly comprehensible, boxes is beyond me. As a second matter, “we have the Church fathers…” Here again, almost every denomination / tradition can make such a claim - there is not any Church with a continuous connection to ALL church fathers, and most traditions can find evidence in at least some of the Church fathers for their views. I appreciate the context from Athanasius.
Please Dr. Copper, i deeply appreciate your work on christology. Please consider those of us who really love them and keep going your great work. Thank you !
Literally doing a Masters paper on the communicatio idiomatum and my Thesis is on Orthodoxy’s icons… You spying on me? These are all super helpful for me. I’m now a Lutheranist because of you… Lutheran in Christology and Calvinist in Soteriology. Thanks for all your work, Dr Cooper!
Semi-Lutheran then 😅 and your semi-friends from the double predestination camp will call you semi pelagians 😆 so where do you enjoy eucharist? Weekly / daily presence or 3 times a year symbolic? Asking for a friend
I am Protestant Christian, I married a Greek Orthodox woman. I actually knew very little about Eastern Orthodox before meeting and dating her (and even after marrying, I only then began delving into its history and doctrines). What I learned, at least from my own investigations and from spending time with her Greek family and reading numerous books on the subject by Greek Orthodox theologians), is that while the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) became ever more political and worldly after (and a bit before) the 1054 AD Schism, the EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church) became cemented in its cultural distinctions. In fact, I would say that's its greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness, its rigid cultural distinctions. It is its greatest strength because for those who belong to or ingratiate themselves into that religious culture, it is extremely tight and unwavering; both the RCC and EOC exhibit a culture of "us vs all others" but the EOC tends to take this a bit further than any Catholic I've ever met. Because the RCC has had to contend with the Reformers and modern Protestant doctrinal issues, today's RCC is much more... "open" to debate, so to say. For their own survival, they are forced to be, or they risk losing more adherents to their doctrinal challengers. But because the EOC has been largely cloistered and isolated away from the Reformers and modern Protestant denominations, it has not developed as much openness to debate and dialogue (or a culture that welcomes it) or been challenged in such a way. Today, as of 2023, I see the EOC getting much more limelight and the time is coming (or perhaps has already arrived) that they will, as a distinct religious culture, be forced to contend with the challenges and challengers from contrasting Christian denominations and not just dismiss all others as "all others". All this to say, I find it all fascinating.
the EOC hasn't been at all cloistered from Protestantism. Why would it be? Protestant missionaries were present in Orthodox lands, in fact they were even encouraged in Transylvania by the Ottomans, for instance. Protestantism simply doesn't make much sense when put against EOC instead of RCC. Hopefully the EOC doesn't become "open to debate" and chooses instead a dignified death than a mutilated "life". The openness for openness sake has largely (well, that and old-fashioned heresy post-1054) ruined Western Christianity. The idea itself that you have to "open to debate" to maintain adepts is moronic, you will estrange the actual believers. You may maintain more adherents in name only.
No, we will still dismiss you as "all others". The Church and Christ cannot be "reformed" or "improved on". We still actually believe that heretics are heretics :) and not just "other forms of Christianity" because Truth doesn't have various forms of Truth, those are called falsehoods :). There is no "religious culture", there is Christianity and various heresies/paganisms etc. You may gain "adherents", but not Orthodox believers.
@@eliegbert8121 None of the quotes you gave are actual quotes. Yes, Nicea II is a valid council. It was addressing the iconoclast controversy of the time so the council was meant to clarify and prove that Saint veneration is okay (and it is). The early Christians and Jews have been using images for religious purposes in their churches and synagogues, just look up Dura Europos.
I wonder though, because there’s a big shift to EO because of how it hasn’t changed, or at least that’s the claim. I only ever hear glowing reviews of it being the one true apostolic church, and this is from converts from Protestants and RCs. I’m curious if more time in the line light will actually lead to any real criticism of the EO church.
I appreciate you doing this, covering in a fairly systematic fashion, and more articulately than I, points that I have been making in my various discussions over the years with Eastern Orthodox persons.
Thanks Dr. Cooper. Enjoyed the presentation, very well done. It was helpful listening to you work through St. Athanasius. Hope you’re having a blessed Holy Saturday.
I've seen MANY people be Orthodox for 3, 5, or even 7+ years, and then leave it. But oh no, they have no right to criticize, because they're Apostates...
EO convert here. I’ll admit that when I first saw this, I was a little annoyed by the timing-holy week just started for us, since our Easter is a week behind yours this year. But that’s because I didn’t expect you to start defending a doctrine that I already believe in. St. Athanasius is merely describing the doctrine of justification that St. Paul lays out in Romans-that the penalty of the law (death) is suffered by Christ, thus by being in Christ, the penalty is already taken and we don’t have to die. I was kind of shocked to hear an Orthodox person say that “even the term justification is problematic for the Orthodox,” given that the word “justification” appears in the prayers of our baptismal rite. Although, I thought that legal and forensic weren’t the same thing. I though that “forensic” justification is particular kind of “legal” justification that entails a reclassification which is not based upon an actual change in the human subject. But in this video, you at least seem to use “forensic” and “legal” interchangeably. If you make a follow-up to this, could you clarify your usage of the terms? It is true that the East places more emphasis on theosis than on justification, but I think that’s mostly because the East aims to be very practical in its theology-any doctrine that doesn’t have some kind of application tends to be regarded as merely speculative or even useless. Since, in our theology, theosis, or participation in the life of Christ, is the means by which one partakes of his death and resurrection (and, by extension, Christ’s justification, see 1 Timothy 3:16), it is also the means by which legal justification is delivered. That makes theosis more actionable than justification, so that’s where the emphasis gets placed, but it doesn’t mean that justification is absent from our theology. It’s similar to how you can drive your car without knowing how the engine works. If you know how to drive, then your car will get you from point A to point B even if you know nothing about the engine. In this analogy, justification is analogous to the car engine-you could be justified by theosis even if you didn’t know how legal justification works. It’s also true that a lot of converts to EO refuse to admit any kind of legal aspect to justification, but from what I’ve heard this is a very recent development in Orthodoxy. I am told that a Greek priest, Father John Romanides, was the first to popularize this, as well as the common excoriation of St. Augustine that one often sees in EO these days. But don’t take my word for that, since I’ve not read Fr. Romanides myself. But supposedly, Fr. Romanides was very popular with a lot of evangelical converts to EO, and some of his opinions are now basically taken for granted by a lot of Orthodox in America. If any of you reading would like to know more about legal justification in Orthodox theology, I’d recommend checking out Seraphim Hamilton. Watch this short video ( th-cam.com/video/ra8wgXvCMtw/w-d-xo.html ) and his debates with Matt Slick and Anthony Rogers to hear the Orthodox doctrine. To me, the main difference between Orthodox and Lutheran thought seems to be the role that sanctification plays in justification. While the Orthodox view is something like faith -> increasing sanctification -> increasing justification the Lutheran view is more like faith -> full immediate justification -> increasing sanctification I hope that this comment is useful to someone; thanks for reading if you actually made it to the end.
The Lutheran view (with those terms and layout) would be more 'justification->faith->sanctification' But we also speak broadly of justification and sanctification as referring to the same thing (mystical union or happy exchange). Justification is also God's work in the old cycle of 'prayer-meditation-trial'; and so a continuously repeated event of drawing into Christ, both seen as grace upon grace and a response to our continually repeated falling from the standard which is Christ. Like Seraphim/Kabane says, the terms are related facets, not interchangeable things (that is, faith/trust, justification, sanctification, et al).
@@j.g.4942 But sola fide is considered an essential doctrine of Lutheranism, correct? If faith is the instrumental cause of justifcation, then how could justification come first? That would seem to contradrict sola fide whether you take the order to be temporal or logical.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed it's because we're justified in Christ and Christ comes first. We receive Him in trust, by the Holy Spirit, then live the New Life given and empowered by the Holy Spirit (who makes us Holy, or sanctifies us). I was also thinking a bit more, I think Justification is better described as related to Jesus' work (for it's regarding words, the Word of God) and Sanctification regarding the Holy Spirit's work. Justification by grace through faith in Christ is the fourth article of the Augsburg Confession, not the first.
@@j.g.4942 I think I detect some category confusion in your line of reasoning, at least if I'm understanding you correctly. It's important to distinguish between the roles that essence and hypostasis/person play in salvation. I can agree in a sense that a person is "saved" before faith as pertains the essence. Christ became fully human, and therefore all humanity is united to him in his death and resurrection because of the shared human essence. But that doesn't mean that every human hypostasis will be saved or justified. A human person must have faith and love in order to appropriate the transformed essence fully to themselves. So the work of Christ done for all humanity--the essential part--comes before faith, but faith belongs to the hypostatic part, because it's a person and not an essence that has faith. If your logic is that the work of Christ causes justification before a human hypostatis has faith, then you seem to sever justification from faith completely. I would abandon the idea that justification is the work of Jesus while sanctification is the work of the Spirit. An important part of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the three divine persons fully co-operate in everything. Otherwise it becomes difficult to see how they can be one and the same God. For more information on that, I recommend reading "On, Not Three Gods" by St. Gregory of Nyssa.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed I wouldn't confuse 'saved' and 'justified' either, and as to our use of 'justified and sanctified' it's both in the broad and narrow senses (like 'world' in the Gospels). In the narrow sense we mean by 'justification' the work of God's Word in removing sin and cleaving to Christ who is our righteousness. In the narrow sense we mean by 'sanctification' the work of the Holy Spirit which "cleanses humans and daily makes them more upright and holier" (FC SD 2.35). In the broader senses of both we use them as you seem to, as referring to aspects of the whole work of God in salvation. "Glorification' is the third 'sibling' in this grouping for us, narrowly referring to the completion of Christ's work and the final passing of evil in the New Creation. Saved could then refer to any of these or all of these (as in 'I was saved, am being saved, shall be saved'). The picture of both justified and sanctified would be being conformed to a standard (say placed inline/just with the cornerstone) and breathing by the life-giving wind respectively. [I will say the Yank Lutherans have created more distinctions (and confusion) with objective and subjective justification; fortunately in Australia we don't have to deal with that.] I can agree that the Incarnation affects all humanity (all will rise in the end), and as you say the person is not the same as humanity. So we would go to Baptism, the first Sacrament (tangible thing that unites us to Christ according to His promise). We understand Baptism as the Work of God (Father, Son, Spirit) through the Church/Minister on and for the person. Basically it's understood that God takes the initiative in salvation (He first makes the world, forms man, gives Law, makes promise, calls Abram etc.), after God's opening of the ears (aligning, or in other language, justifying/righting to His Word) the person in receiving this grace now has the choice to reject or hear (breath in this New Life). Certainly there's tomes that have been written on all that Baptism entails, yet basically for us it's God makes alive in Christ by the Holy Breath/Spirit (justification) and by the Spirit we live this New Life (sanctification); this only when we do not reject Him (or said positively, as we trust we receive the benefits of God's work for us). Love would then be what living in faith looks like to many, though not all (God's love looks like hatred to those who hate Him). I won't however abandon the idea that Jesus is the Word of God or that the Holy Spirit is the breath of God; I'm not going to de-person them even where they do work together. We aren't cleaved to the Holy Spirit, nor are we His bride; and we do not breath Jesus our Lord while we do live in Him and He in us. In the narrow view of Justification the Holy Spirit draws us to Christ through whom we can see the Father; in the narrow view of sanctification we breathe with Jesus the Holy Spirit as the Son of the Father. That being said, I'm certainly still learning and so thank you very much for the testing interaction. I've been brought up in a Lutheran tradition that has a disdain for the more academic, a love for the more pastoral; as well as an affinity more of Semitic than Hellenic (1000 odd years of 'what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem' might do that to us). Thank you again, and may the Lord Jesus have mercy.
I understand the appeal of EO to a point. They are historical, yet maintain a separate identity from Rome. I have a friend who currently attends an Assyrian church (though not Assyrian himself) and he has expressed interest in EO. My issues with EO come from the following areas: 1.) the gospel. While I am glad (as quoted below) that EO as a rule accepts the forensic/penal substitution facet of the atonement, sometimes they seem to be a bit hostile toward it just because Protestants accept it (In one sense it's like an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist snubbing the Apostles' Creed just because Roman Catholics use it). I fully acknowledge that there are other facets to the atonement (including theosis, although I'm not sure specifically what EO means by it), but Scripture is also very clear concerning the substitutionary aspect of the atonement in several places. 2.) Prayers to Saints/Icons-this still smacks too much of idolatry, especially some of their prayers to Mary, which almost deify her. I remember Pastor Will Weedon of the LC-MS reading off one of the Marian prayers, and you very easily could have substituted "God" for the references to Mary in that prayer without skipping a beat. That's very troubling, to say the least. And the impression given with icons is that they almost have a magic quality to them (yes, I realize that EOs may disagree with that description, but that's how it comes across at times). 3.) Toll houses. They sound too much like a substitute for purgatory, and the mere idea of them clashes with Scripture in more than one way. 4.) Overemphasis on mystery. I believe there are mysteries, but the EO seems to categorize as mystery items where Scripture is clear 5.) Equating tradition with Scripture (like Rome)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.". : ) :)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out. -Acts 3:19 :) :)
The next time you are in Colorado I’d love to hear you do a conversation with a western rite orthodox priest or monk! They have several there. But also I believe there’s plenty of them in the northeast. I think you could have a good conversation about the idea of not needing to leave the west to be orthodox:)
Also about your section on Forenstic V Participatory I agree 100% and that was actually the first thing that I realized when I began speaking theologically with the east was how the caricatures of both parties were almost adopted organically by each side. When I first starting learning about divine simplicity the first articles or books in Google on the eastern side was a complete rejection. But speaking to eastern seminary professors and lots of different parish priests, the overarching reaction I got was a rejection of an absolute divine simplicity that had no room for a distinction between the essence and energies of God. The western theologians I know often have this almost cult-like defense of a divine simplicity that is absolute (which is why most scholarly orthodox I know defend divine simplicity but not an absolute divine simplicity), because to say there are distinctions is incoherent with simply things like persons of the Godhead. There are clearly distinctions 😅 so another one in the essences and energies isn’t denying divine simplicity but also not giving up a system of explanation that has been used for 1700 years. I benefited greatly from just speaking to orthodox theologians. Gave me a much greater appreciate for both the Lutheran and Orthodox theological traditions.
The priests at Saint Augustine in Denver would be a particularly meta place to do this since it was once the main Lutheran Cathedral for Denver’s “Little Germany” for decades, until the community effectively dispersed, joined other religions and/or died out, leaving it derelict for years until the Antioch archdiocese purchased it and retrofitted it for Western Orthodox use.
13:30 I hear this most Sundays. 14:41 never discussed and actively avoided because it isn’t in the KJV bible. 26:52 constantly present. 47:21 not true just the majority. 50:44 not untouchable but the eastern and western mindset is different and immersion is the best teacher. 1:01:07 yes!!! Can’t wait for Filioque !! I really like your stuff, believe it or not, and it’s about the only thing keeping me from leaving the Lutheran Church altogether. Thanks for all the videos!
Purity, piety, obedience, serservice, love , repenting and looking to Jesus Christ we all have in common. Not to mention the Fathef and Holy Spirit and the angels. Most of the church believes in Holy Communion, not rememberence so lets zero in on what we agree on and pray fast wait on God to direct our hearts for directions as too where to worship. Love to all.❤❤❤❤
I am a Protestant convert to Orthodox Christianity. However, I have a long-term respect for Lutheranism and have read writings and have attended a Lutheran church recently. Reconsidering my earlier conversion. But I have a question. What do you feel about the statement "In some way, Lutheranism may be closer to Orthodoxy or Catholicism than certain Protestant groups such as Independent Baptist or Reformed Baptist or Pentecostal. But Lutheranism is really its own entity?" Thanks, in advance.
Please continue to produce more detailed content like this. Your videos are a blessing! Thank you, Pastor. Also, could you please continue your series about Sola Fide in the Church Fathers?
Thank you, Dr. Cooper. What are your thoughts (if any) on the Assyrian Church of the East? I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about that church body.
I have the same struggle... making the content I want to make, creating content that will get views, and responding to the needs & wants of the subscribers. I've got an idea for you about the latter two. Keep up the good work!
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, for your fine discussion. I find it interesting that the recent Orthodox convert cites as the main text to justify their transition one from a book of the NT (2 Peter) that did not have the undivided approval of the Ancient Church as to its apostolic authorship. See Eusebius and Jerome. At the same time, there is crickets on a major theme--forensic justification--in a major NT epistle (Romans) that is recognized as apostolic by all. (Also, the divine wrath is certainly a major theme in both OT and NT.) Of course, nothing wrong with what's taught in Second Peter about participating in the divine nature--if understood correctly, i.e. the partaking happens by faith in the gospel, not by silent meditational techniques (e.g.). In fact, it is a beautiful verse. Certainly, not just Walther but also Luther had highly positive things to say based on this verse. But again, if that's the primary reference for one's theology, something seems off--especially if, as Dr. Cooper's nice discussion of Athanasius showed, the testimony of the Ancient Church was so much richer. What I find interesting is that there is, at least since the 19th century, a movement afoot in Protestantism to discount the "Anselmian" view of the atonement. The angry God who is out to restore his honor by slaying his Son--many seem embarrased or even disgusted by it these days. Liberal theology builds on that, arguing that God didn't need Christ's death and claiming that Jesus was just a victim of Roman injustice, not of God's justice. It seems that some kind of belief in a non-bloody way to salvation by means of the incarnation and participation would be attractive given the current climate in the West.
I really appreciate the point about the false dichotomy between forensic justification and participation. It just does not hold if you read the New Testament carefully.
Hello, Orthodox Chrisitan here. I already knew that they were more bridges accross your theology and the russian orthodox one than some orthodox youtubers might say. Your video is really interesting. However, regarding Athanasius, in 35:46, you say that "there has to be a payment" I think you are unintentionally forcing your vision on the text, the word "debt" doesn't seem present in the text. In the waiting of more resources from you.
Well, I read Lyndal Roper`s brilliant biography on M. Luther where the man comes out as strongly immature character, both spiritually and psychologically - completely unsuitable as a religious teacher. He could have taught math or architecture without causing traumas BUT NOT ANYTHING to do with the emancipation of the soul. Naturally, his immaturity can be found in his teaching.
My understanding is that in the EO church, veneration of icons is commanded and that those who do not venerate are declared anathema and must be excommunicated. Requiring icon veneration for salvation? Is this not a "different gospel" as warned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians? How did Peter and Paul and others preach the gospel throughout the book of Acts, resulting in salvation for thousands with no mention of icon veneration?
The characterization of the Church by the Apostle Paul as The characterization of the Church by the Apostle Paul as the "Body of Christ" and Christ as Her "Head" (Coloss.1, 24:18) brought the Church into a direct association with Christ. Being joined to the eternal Logos of God, the Church is likewise eternal and pre-existent before the ages, within Christ. Her beginning, therefore, and Her origin are not located in mankind, but in God. The Church "is not of this world" (John 18:36); it is a mystery "withheld from the ages, in God" (Ephes. 3:9). ICXC NIKA Dr Paisios
50:16 No, it doesn't. Orthodox born and raised, in the Romanian Orthodox Bible, Paul's justification term is translated as "made righteous", "corrected". So in Romanian, being a Romance language, we have the word "justificat", which can mean acquitted, declared not guilty; but they don't translate it that way.
EO here: During the 17th Century, due to plenty of political factors, clergy were educated at Protestant and Catholic seminaries. Although Protestantism made an influence, the Catholic influence in the Church was immense. St. Peter Mogila (d. 1646), whose Confession and catechism (a slightly modified Jesuit one) was accepted and used by the Orthodox churches, believed in purgatory (rejected by the churches and omitted from the confession), the Catholic approach to priesthood, transubstantiation, original sin, confession, etc. He formed the first Slavic seminary in Kiev and taught completely in Latin. St. Dimitry of Rostov (d. 1709) was apart of a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception. The Confession of Dositheus 1672 very much adopted Catholic rhetoric to rebut the reformed confession of Lukaris. Latin was used in Russian seminary until the 1830s. Really since the mid 1800s, the Orthodox have begun to look back into their own history and reflect on perceived "Latin Captivity" of the Orthodox tradition. This continued in the West with the Neo-Patristic synthesis of Florovsky and continues to bear fruit as scholars look to the early Fathers for answers to todays questions. The worst result can be seen in phyletism, where one believes his own culture is superior to all others. (i.e. you have to be Greek or Slavic to really be Orthodox). In the late 20th Century, Fr. John Romanides' approach to the West (i.e. Augustine is basically the cause of everything wrong in the west) and his caricatures of western theology were taught in our American seminaries. Our churches are still struggling with an anti-western mindset, but there are many who are trying to rectify the situation (Fr. Pat Reardon, for example or a blog like Orthodox Christian Theology). Please bear with us, as we try to get our act together. 🙃
Going to St. Patrick's (Western Rite) Orthodox Church in Bealeton, VA, is one of the things which showed me that I don't need to hate the Latin theological tradition to become Orthodox. I am Eastern Rite now, partially because there is no WR parish within reasonable distance, but avoiding Orthodoxy because "I'd have to become Greek/Syrian/etc. and I'm not" is quite dishonest and lazy. The Russian Orthodox Church is one of the largest jurisdictions abroad, and the Russian tradition is quite Western in its music, iconography, etc. My parish is Antiochian, our Patriarch being seated in Syria, and yet my parish is full of converts from various Protestant tradtions and is also quite Western in its aesthetics. And all of that aside, if one is believes Holy Orthodoxy is the true Church and yet avoids visiting a parish because he doesn't like the aesthetics, that is an issue with his own soul, not with the Orthodox Church.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, wonderful in-depth look. And I'm glad you balance popular topics with important topics. If oil painters allowed themselves to be influenced by online votes, as they worked on a painting, there would be no more masterpiece paintings produced. They would've told Van Gogh he used too much yellow. Sometimes we need to conform to the expert to get the good stuff.
Not surprising that protestants have no clue, like this professor, of Orthodox theology when even majority of orthodox christians do not understand it at all. Orthodox theology is very simple. First, you need to truly repent (do the fruits of worthy repentance) and then clean your heart with the Grace of God and become perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Which protestant reach this state? Which one was or is or will be blessed since he/her became pure in heart and reached perfection? Just one example please. In Orthodox church there are multiple such examples and they are called saints. Not only are the saints events of past time but they are alive and walking today. When we die and will stand before the Throne of The King of the Kings, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for the judgment what, you think, we are going to be judged: how many books we read about theology and how well we understood them? No my friend. We will be asked if we followed Christ Commandments. I know I did not. Did you follow it? I know you did not. Christ said, whoever keeps my Commandments he will not sin and My Father and I will come to him and We will dwell in him. You certainly are not such a person as I am not. If you were, your mindset and your preaching would not have been any different from those of the real saints of Orthodox Church. Those saints not only kept the main commandments (the ones that reach man asked Jesus Christ to be saved about) but also, to become perfect, they sold everything they had and followed The Lord. Do you have such examples in Protestantism? I have never heard of it. The word theologian denotes somebody who speaks of God. God, as true theologians teach, is Uncreated, Inconceivable, Incomprehensible, Indescribable and Immaterial. How can anybody speak of such God if he/she has never been revealed of this by God himself? Anybody who speaks of God (meaning speaks of theology) without having revelational experience is demoniac theologian by Orthodox definition. Orthodox saints say this clearly that all theology which is not revealed by God himself is demonic theology. In this included are all types of scholasticism, or theologizing with logical arguments. This is Orthodox theology for dummies like me in a nutshell. This is also why the author of this video cannot understand Saint Athanasius the Great. St Athanasius was not just mere man. He was real saint, Sanctified by All Holy Trinity himself. He was talking out of revelational experience and not just from reading books.
What I think you would find interesting in a discussion on lutherism vs orthadoxcy is their stance on sola scriptural.. I would love to see how you answer their polemics
At around the 30:00 min mark you talk about a key issue that led me to stop my EO catechism: The Orthodox ignoring the forensic language of Scripture. They say they're the Fullness but yet ignore or outright reject a central tenet of Scripture - its teachings on Justification, propitiation, satisfaction of wrath, etc. These are CLEARLY taught in Scripture. I never could understand the Orthodox disposition to ignore penal substitutionary language (they don't care for Ransom Theory either) that is CLEARLY all throughout Scripture. But see you can do that if you don't have Sola Scriptura. When the Bible isn't your highest or infallible authority, then you can ignore certain Scriptural themes, or simply claim that anyone with an alternate interpretation is wrong because they don't have your "Tradition," as the Orthodox do. I have some Orthodox friends who have the same problems but decided to remain Orthodox and just be isolated with their own doctrinal and theological differences. There is enough good there for them to stay. And I totally get that. Sometimes fellowship and community is more important than agreeing on everything doctrinally. But I personally couldn't stay in EO. Im too impressionable. I need to be around other Christians who are at least sometimes gonna talk justification and penal substitutionary atonement, etc. I need to be in an environment where Justification by Faith is going to be taught or spoken of at least ONCE in a while. Else over time I'll lose my own footing in the faith. Tbh there was just too much cognitive dissonance for me during catechism to remain Eastern Orthodox. And I really, really *wanted* to be Orthodox, at points. I really am starting to see evidence that Orthodoxy is Semi-Pelagian or at least "Pelagian influenced," (I don't think it a coincidence that the Orthodox don't view the Council of Orange as Ecumenical). At the end of the day, like you said Dr Cooper, it's just too steep a climb to be Western and rooted in Augustinian thought, and become Orthodox. It is a long, arduous, and dangerous trek across the Tiber.
Lutheran here who graduated from a Jesuit college in the 1980s. I still have _On the Incarnation_ from my Theology class which was taught by an Armenian Orthodox layman. 😀
Just to be clear I have ecclesiastical anxiety being that there are things I agree with the Orthodox on and things I agree with the Protestants on. With that said one of the problems with the Western atonement is that it makes God “need” something. God being God is not in “need” of anything so He does not need his “wrath” or “honor” appeased. He lacks nothing. The crucifixion paid our debt (death) but it was out of His love and not His “need.” At least that is how I understood Orthodoxy theology. I could be wrong about it so I apologize to any Orthodox person if I got that wrong. How would Protestants respond to that charge? If there is a book or website that would be great. I’m open to learning.
I know of a video series you could watch. It's what helped me return to Christianity altogether, and without it, I probably would not have done so. Start with: "God Was Not Ruling the World" th-cam.com/video/rrZeKqfvRBs/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for the video, doctor, I do enjoy your content. Although we broke his law, we Orthodox just dont see the "penalty", we see the consequence of death for us, in that sin. We dont see the debt owed aspect of substitutionary atonement. The punishment of death is the result of sin, not something we are paying to God. Its just a bit of a different phronima.
not sure if you've read it, but Stephen Holmes' "Quest for the Trinity" does a pretty good job of refuting that "east and west have different trinitarian theologies" idea, and critiques Zizioulas specifically. Its worth a read!
I've known Lutherans that say they feel more comfortable worshiping with EO or RC members than people like me (confessional 1689 Baptist). I find that strange and don't understand it...but I guess it has to do with their personal and/or denominational preference to particular views of the sacraments above other doctrines, possibly?
God's Work and Promise in Baptism and Holy Communion are central to Lutheran practise. We see these as where God has promised to meet us and make us one with Jesus; or where we are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Any disagreement on this fundamental understanding is uncomfortable for many Lutherans (variously seen as rejecting an aspect of God's work and word, or calling God a liar). Which is why Luther said, "better blood with the papists than mere wine with the fanatics" and referring to Calvinists and Anabaptists, "they are of a different spirit". There's a reason more than just regional distance that there was never one 'protestant' tradition.
I would really like to know how the Hindu mudras (hand signs ended up in Iconography) haven't heard an answer yet. If anyone knows. I would appreciate it
Are you saying all hand signals in Christian iconography originated with Hinduism? I've always wondered about it, too, but didn't know it had a singular origin like that.
@@dorinamary7863 I wouldn't say that it all goes back to Hinduism but there is most likely the same source of occult mysticism behind both of them, i.e. mystery Babylon. But yes these hand signals are conveying some esoteric meaning one way or the other. I just haven't found anyone who has any content about this subject. I would love to know if you find some answers. Feel free to send them this way. I think the take away is that paganism infiltrated Christian art, beliefs, and practices. God bless
Vicarious Satisfaction is the idea of Sin-Offering. From my research and dialogue with Matt Fenn, we have to distinguish between death through the lens of punishment and death through the lens of payment. Christ dies after living a perfect life IN ORDER TO offer His life as a satisfaction for the worlds sins. Christ makes payment, so we aren't punished. Christ isn't... technically punished.
@Bob Taylor Sin-offering propitiates punishment. Christ is not punished in V.S. In this view, the lamb is not a scapegoat but an offering to forestall. Which is the more proper understanding of the Temple sacrifices, the lamb is killed not as symbol of substitutionary punishment, but as a component of offering the first fruits of our livelihood. For Anselm, it would be unjust for God to "punish" an innocent party, but since Christ is fully human, and humans owe God infinite honor, it is just to demand a sacrifice of honor/obedience to the law from Christ (as it is just to demand it from all creation), and since Christ is the only one who can fullfill this demand, he lives a perfectly obedient life and gives his life as a payment for the sin of the world -- and since he's divine, the offering is of infinite worth and _can_ be applied to all. It's the difference between paying someone's fine (if they can't afford it) and going to jail in their place. Christ is the infinitely wealthy man.
@@bobtaylor170 it’s the difference between Christ willingly taking on and bearing our sins vs having them unjustly thrown upon him. The Orthodox perspective is the former.
@@harrygarris6921 do you think that Protestants believe there is dissent in the Godhead? Of course, Jesus knew what His primary purpose in being made Incarnate was. That doesn't mean he was forced to do it. He did ask that the cup be taken from Him, but the Father said no. What I think this is really all about is the Catholic and Orthodox rejection of justification by faith.
@Bob Taylor I lean toward 'vicarious satisfaction' and lean toward rejecting 'penal substitution' (which I'm carefully distinguishing), and I'm a Lutheran-Protestant. In either system, the sins of the world are paid for -- justification by faith trusts that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for my salvation, that is an irrelevant issue to the model used. The concern of V.S. is to render God just in the sacrifice by not punishing the innocent, but rather in Him merely receiving the sacrifice of His Son as a sufficient payment to cancel out our sin. For V.S., the direction of the cross is an upward offering of payment. In P.S., the direction of the cross is a downward outpouring of punishment.
Read the Small Paraklesis. This may save some a lot of time... To the Theotokos, let us run now most fervently, As sinners and lowly ones, Let us fall down in repentance, Crying from the depths of our soul: Lady, come and help us, Have compassion upon us; Hasten now for we are lost In the host of our errors; Do not turn your servants away, For you alone are a hope to us. O Theotokos, we shall never be silent. Of your mighty acts, all we the unworthy; Had you not stood to intercede for us Who would have delivered us, From the numerous perils? Who would have preserved us all Until now with our freedom? O Lady, we shall not depart from you; For you always save your servants, From all tribulation.
I don't see the problem. It was by her will that Christ became Incarnate, all that Christ did is, at least in part, a product of her will; she is the great hope of mankind, for she brought salvation into the world.
@@costakeith9048 It's one thing to acknowledge and honor her memory. It's another to use the most extreme language possible and address her like a goddess and entreat her as if she's an active mediator between God and Mankind. Also, alternating worship of the Triune God and a creature named Mary is completely foreign to the monotheistic religion of the Old Testament and the Holy God of Israel. It's clear as day to those who have read the Bible. It really is the most problematic thing that exists in Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not a small issue as some like to pretend. Language matters.
@@ro6tiLanguage does matter and if you look carefully at the language used you will see there is nothing that cannot be theologically justified. We do not worship her as a goddess, that line is never crossed. But we make no apologies about using every epitaph fitting for the virgin mother of our King and our God who by her very word did consent to the Will of He Who is, thus bringing Salvation into the world in the Person of the Incarnate Word, who did take her very nature and very flesh upon Himself, thus standing before God as the sole representative of all mankind: for He took flesh from no other man, but by the sacrificing of the flesh received from her did He bring salvation to all. And, thus, she is the new and greater Eve, for while Eve gave birth to all men, save Adam, the Theotokos gave birth to the Pre-Eternal Word and, thus, to the salvation of all mankind. You may be uncomfortable with such language for various cultural reasons, but there is no lie in it. These things are natural and unavoidable consequences of the Divinity of our Lord and the salvific role of the Cross and the Incarnation. If you deny she is the Mother of God, you deny that Christ is God. If you deny she brought salvation to all the world, you deny the Cross.
@@costakeith9048 This is NOT a natural/unavoidable consequence of the Divinity of the Lord. If so, Paul would've mentioned Mary's name at least once in all his writings. It's blasphemy to the consciences of many believers in the Triune God and worth dividing over.
Please keep doing those in-depth, scholarly series (Intro to Christology etc.). It's one reason I love your channel: you never do click bait, you never try to please the crowd at the expense of substance. That makes your channel a rare gold mine.
Thanks for the video Dr. Cooper. As an evangelical catholic "Lutheran" I am really looking forward to the publishing of the Lutheran Missal project. I really do appreciate the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on praxis in theosis.
I suspect that as Lutherans fled Europe, during the Enlightenment and into the 19th century, much good and wholesome western catholic praxis has been lost to us or shelved.
Many pastors and parishes are working to gradually recover forgotten traditions. I believe this is a positive development. Having the "right" systematics is great, but we need to also be formed by more and better praxis.
I look forward to the printing of these materials and rediscovering our western heritage. God's blessings to all His children, both East and West.
To the Orthodox people in the comments: thank you for being so charitable and thoughtful in your responses. Online theology discussions rarely go beyond dunking on one’s opponents, and it’s a nice change of pace to see this.
I was LCMS for about a decade before becoming Orthodox. On the end of Orthodox spirituality for converts, my priest taught me that it is important to see the good in the tradition one comes from, and not to lash out against it and revile it in the heart, that the former confession has exceptional qualities which helped to direct him towards the Orthodox Church. Internet outrage culture and the "Orthobro" phenomenon are hardly distinguishable past the thin veil of Christianity claimed by the latter; they share the same noxious spirit. Anger is a snare used by the enemy to drag many through the gates of hades.
@@CSSML914 Thank you for your charitable words, dear brother in Christ! Blessed Easter/Pascha season!
@@alexlancaster5455 blessed Paschaltide to you as well. Christ is risen!
@@CSSML914 Indeed He Is Risen?
As if Cooper never uses polemics? Really?
I’ve really benefited a lot from your Christology series, and it’s one of the most useful things I’ve found on TH-cam. Thank you.
As a former Evangelical, Lutheran, and Reformed believer who became Eastern Orthodox, my advice to inquirers would be (1) do not waste 30-years (like I did) comparing and picking one that makes sense to you-your perspective will change and you will jump from one path to the other and never really know the truth; (2) traditions did not all develop side-by-side, they have different starting points, so look at which ones have been consistently the same for the longest because the truth does not change; and (3) Christ Himself says “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent,” John 17:3. Only in Orthodoxy have I begun to understanding that “knowing God” is more than head knowledge and trying to be a good Christian; God opens Himself to us only when we love Him with all our hearts and love our neighbors as ourselves. I fall way short (Lord have mercy), but have been blessed with glimpses of our true calling in our Liturgies and my life as an Orthodox Christian.
As an Orthodox Christian I really didn't find the language about substitution and satisfaction to be objectionable. I think we really just recoil at the use of the punitive language towards Christ's sacrifice. Our focus is on Christ's willing offering of Himself for sin being the key factor rather than the satisfaction of divine wrath.
How do you handle texts like Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 where Christ's sacrifice is referred to as a "propitiation" (ἱλαστήριον/ἱλασμός)? Also, if the unjustified are under God's wrath, but then Christ dies in their place in order to deliver them from punishment (Hell) and "reconcile" them to God, doesn't this sort of imply that Christ's sacrifice was punitive and wrath-averting?
@@michael6549 Why does God not have the power to forgive sin unless someone dies? Is God beholden to some kind of natural law that supersedes even the power of God? I mean that’s the main criticism that I would initially throw out at PSA theory.
But even more importantly I think we have to be careful here not to separate Christ and God the Father. There is one divine will. Therefore it is appropriate to say that Christ took on not the “Father’s” wrath, but God’s wrath. In other words, Jesus took his own wrath upon himself. That doesn’t make a lot of sense if you take the sacrifice of Christ on the cross to be an appeasement of an angry God. Jesus had to kill…. Himself? To appease… Himself? That makes no sense.
Rather, I appreciate how St. Ambrose comments on this passage which I think illustrates well what the early church taught and I have quoted here: “Paul says this, because in Christ God put forward, i.e., appointed, himself as a future expiation for the human race if they believed. This expiation was by his blood. We have been set free by his death so that God might reveal him and condemn death by his passion.”
Christs sacrifice serves as an atonement to break the power of death through his perfect righteousness which we can receive to cover for our sin that all the faithful both past and present can receive through their faith. Just like the Passover lamb did for the Jews during the exodus. That’s why in every language other than English “Easter” is called “Passover”. Throughout the scriptures the term “wrath” is used to describe God’s judgement of sin, but don’t forget that this is an imperfect word attempting to describe a divine attribute. The takeaway isn’t that God experiences anger just like us humans do, it’s that sin has no place in Gods kingdom.
@@harrygarris6921 Expiation and propitiation are two different things. The one deals with forgiveness, the other with the averting of wrath. Also, there's that whole thing about us being once "children of wrath" but then, after Christ's death, being reconciled to God. Doesn't that imply that Christ's death averted God's wrath?
There are a lot of things about God's character that I don't fully understand. I don't understand how God can be merciful and wrathful at the same time. Yet if I want to be faithful to God I can't simply deny that God is wrathful. Yes, I understand that some see these aspects of God's character as "anthropomorphisms". An interesting early writing to consider is Lactantius' On the Wrath of God. If I recall correctly, he rejects the whole anthropomorphism explanation.
@@michael6549 I think we can look to the Old Testament rituals that God instituted for the Israelites for examples of non-penal substation. On the day of atonement the Israelite high priest did kill a lamb and sprinkle the blood on the people to symbolize an atonement for sin, but it’s not because their sins were placed on the lamb to die in their stead, the lamb was innocent and died a righteous death. The blood of the uncorrupted lamb “covered” sin rather than “paying” for it.
There was a sin offering of a goat as well, but the goat was not slain. It was led out of the camp into the wilderness after the Israelites sin was symbolically placed upon it.
Christ is a fulfillment of this original covenant that God made with his people. I think that’s why we can look to the OT for instruction on what atonement is. The penal substitution theory not only ignores the precedent set up by the old covenant, but comes out of some really wacky and (in my opinion) misguided midieval European philosophy rather than being biblically based.
Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics both agree on Chrit's willing offering of Himself for sin being the key factor rather than the satisfaction of divine wrath. Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics alike believe the formal cause of justification is the infusion of sanctifying grace INTO the believer. For Martin Luther (and the rest of XVI century Protestants) the formal cause of justification is the foral imputation of Christ's righteousness (extra-nos).
The idea of infused sanctifying grace as the formal cause of our justification is what is most in line with the Tradition of the Early Church and the Bible. Luther's position of the extrinsic imputation of Christ's very own righteousness was a complete novelty to the XVI Century "Reformation".
Both St Augustine and Luther are agreed that God graciously gives sinful humans a righteousness which justifies them. But where is that righteousness located? Augustine argued that it was to be found within believers; Luther insisted that it remained outside believers. That is, for Augustine, the righteousness in question is internal; for Luther, it is external.
This was quite an interesting discussion.
Definitely helped me to understand our Lutheran friends.
-An Orthodox cousin in Christ
Thanks!
It helps to get good first hand info. I visited orthodox churches and talked to priest and parishioners after at coffee and biscuit time. I learned a lot which I couldn't have learned from Wikipedia or my former own Church. I keep telling Catholics and Orthodox that Traditional Lutheran is way closer to them than protestant churches. We aren't really protestants. We have the creeds, liturgy, real presence, crosses and crucifixes, vestments and no female pastors. Like Catholics we enjoy good music with our hymns, and I would miss that in Orthodox churches. I love the iconography though and if there wasn't Lutheran or Catholic I'd be going to Orthodox. We have Serbian, Greek, Romanian and Assyrian and Coptic Church in the region. Not bad for a small city. When I was in city I was having a bnb almost next to the Armenian Church, I really wanted to visit but didn't have time
@@Dilley_G45 I'd rather be a Jehovah's Witness than eastern orthodox or catholic. Have you ever visited a Jehovah's Witness hall?
@@br.mlol, why?
@@br.mJW is a false religion as they deny the divinity of Christ
Hey Dr. Cooper! Just wanted to say that I enjoy this type of videos as well as your deeper Christology videos! Thank you for what you do!
Orthodox have historically had no issues with Anselm of Canterbury's satisfaction theory of atonement. It is in fact affirmed by post-schism Orthodox Fathers such as St. Nicholas Cabasilas (d. 1392) in his famous work The Life in Christ, St. Philaret of Chernigov's (d.1866) Dogmatic Theology, and St. Nektarios of Aegina's (d. 1920) Catechism. This is from St. Nektarios on the Atonement:
"In His capacity as the great High Priest, the Savior offered Himself up as a spotless sacrifice to His God and Father, an atoning sacrifice; He was both the officiator and the sacrifice, propitiating and satisfying the justice of God which threatened humanity because of transgressing the divine law; He paid the whole penalty as a sinless representative of the human race before God the Father; the punishment that sinful man deserved He bore on the cross, shedding His precious blood for our salvation and sealing the New Covenant, which He made with the Father, and which offers salvation to everyone who believes in Him, confessing that His death on the cross made atonement."
what you present is only a segment of orthodox theology. don't forget that orthodox theology is mystical. and mysticism is based on the understanding of salvation in Christ as the healing of soul powers distorted by the work of sin and the loss of grace. so what you present is a theology of the cross ... a place where you should be careful, as westerners, not to come with your preconceptions about the theology of the cross from the west. even the theology of the cross is still a theology of healing in Orthodox theology, this is best seen in the services during Lent and in all the services related to Easter. be careful with your own preconceptions so as not to cause confusion.
I wonder how different St Nectarios' personal view is from that of the general modern Reformed view of PSA though? ... I must explore! My guess is that the Anselmian theory influenced many in certain ways and at certain times post schism, but that the view of the provision and offering of God Himself "for us" as our substitute (which no trinitarian denies) had a generally differing "flavour""emphasis" to say, the 4th century Greek Fathers than a modern Protestant. God is certainly not torturing God. Though He predetermined the Cross, we and the demons are most certainly doing our very worst - as His rightness fulfills, disarms, destroys and unites with us... dying our death that we may escape the wrath to come as we rise in Him.
@@eui6037 totally agree the Western conception of what happena at the cross is almost diametrically opposed to our view.
@@eui6037 How is eastern orthodoxy "mystical"? It seems more physical. Mysticism, in my imagination, would be more like for example, opening a window to heaven in thin air. Eastern Orthodoxy paints ugly pictures that a preschooler can do better, then they kiss and worship their drawings and say that the drawings are windows to heaven.
That seems more like lack of anything mystical. The extreme opposite of mysticism...
@@br.m 😄 "...in my imagination..." .
St Athanasius does say in the letter to Marcillanius from a Psalter for prayer:
He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression.
I appreciate that you gently point out how many Orthodox Writers can write an 800+ Page commentary on one verse. As a Latin, that is one of my critiques of the EO Church.
Great video. Look forward to hearing more on the Filioque. I will share this.
- Erick Ybarra
Have you considered converting to Orthodoxy?
Coming from an Orthodox point of view, I found this video really frustrating, primarily because I thought the Orthodox essay being responded to was so bad. It's unfortunate that in the anglophone world there's an unbalanced, largely reactionary (ie. defined negatively by the Western confessions it opposes) variant of Orthodoxy that doesn't really properly represent what the Orthodox church really is. It means that a video like this never really comes to grips with the Orthodox church as it is, but it's hard to fault people for responding to what are (unfortunately) the popular Orthodox polemics in the anglophone world. It is true that the Orthodox approach soteriology in a way that de-emphasizes the legal aspect, and I think that's appropriate and faithful to Scripture. But it throws everything out if perspective when this turns into just ignoring legal categories altogether. It's worth noting that Patriarch Jeremias never did this in his correspondence with the Lutheran theologians.
As an aside, it's definitely not true that Orthodox Christians don't talk about justification, although it is true that the actual word "justification" isn't used much except when directly commenting on Scripture. But the theme of the forgiveness of sins is pretty ubiquitous in the liturgical prayer of the church, which in the Orthodox church is seen as one of the primary witnesses to the Church's dogma.
I am not a Lutheran but Dr. Jordon's explanation of the atonement is right on. The legal implications that existed between God and man had to be satisfied before we could ever experience God in Christ on a personal level. Thank you for this wonderful exposition.
Ex Orthodox here. I didn't get it either, and I suspect most of the folks in my former congregation did either. I don't say this in a disparaging way- they were kind and decent people, but the emphasis was absolutely more on doing the right stuff that we were very proud had always been done that way and everyone else was different. Once I started feeling like I was boasting in my works, I sought out a Lutheran Pastor and I've been in the LCMS since. That's a few years now anyway.
Why should you listen to Lutheran theology? I suspect you don't properly understand the rationale for being Orthodox.
Between Orthodox and Lutheran and cannot ever saw the stridence in OC that I hear people talk about
How do you know the Lutheran Church is the correct one, as opposed to any other Protestant branch? You understand it is good to be doing the things that have always been done, yes? Even Paul said he commended the Corinthians for persisting in the traditions exactly as he had delivered them to them.
@@IanErickson-z2g What?
@MatthewBrender-wy6bb why is it only Credal Christians? If I think the Trinity is false, why should I not be considered a Christian.
Wow Dr. Cooper,
I really enjoyed this episode of Just and Sinner as I think there is a need to hear about Eastern Orthodoxy from a historically rooted Protestant point of view. Every time I watch your channel I learn so much about church history and the Fathers from a Protestant perspective. Prayers and blessings from a Wesleyan Pentecostal fan!
Dear Jordan, I watch/listen to most of your videos. I absolutely love the in-depth video on tough theological topics that you make. While it is tempting to give in to people's short attention spans, you do something good for all of us when you engage with deep thinking. I like the format of you simply taking through things like you do.
That said, I think you can make some of your videos a bit more accessible. One small thing: I notice that when you speak, you end a lot of your sentences before you get to the final period. It kinda sounds like you keep getting new thoughts that you want to interject. Sometimes this is fine. Sometimes it all ends up getting convoluted.
Your video here is one hour long. But there are no timestamps or outline given. One idea might simple be to give people some kind of handout with an outline of what you will be talking about. Then refer back to that as you start a new point. This can also help with summarizing your main points. So, if people get lost 20 min into the video, they can reconnect when you summarize and "reset". Some of this may require more editing than you have time for. I hope this makes a bit of sense.
Yes, I hope he sees your comment.
Thanks. It really is just a matter of time more than anything else. I put a lot of prep into these podcasts, and it's hard to find time to do extensive outlines along with everything else. I have thought through doing more powerpoint presentations like I do in the Makers of the Modern World series.
I’m Orthodox and I would NEVER reject the forensic and substitutionary aspect of Christs work on the cross.
I’d agree that there are many many many orthodox who reject the forensic nature of Christs work because they want to separate themselves from the west.
I’d say this usually comes from western converts who are trying to run away from legalism.
However, it’s not Orthodox to reject the forensic nature of Christs work.
I would express our view through the lens of St Paul who preaches and quoted from The Exodus.
Christ is the paschal lamb. He redeems all creation by His work. The righteous and unrighteous are reconciled to God by the work of Christ. Yes we punished Him, yes it pleased the Father to see Him punished as such. By the work of the suffering servant we are reconciled to God, all things are reconciled. Not one iota will He lose.
Christ receives His inheritance and we who are freed by the blood of the lamb walk in obedience according to His laws, sustained by His body and blood, healed by His work until in obedience we attain the promised land.
For those who reject Him, they too will be resurrected and being in a resurrected incorruptible body cannot change their inclinations, being opposed to God, they are resurrected opposed to God eternally.
We are asked to choose life or death.
We will be judged if we are resurrected in opposition to Him and being incorruptible will remain forever in torment. By our own choosing.
I would also say that we view this walk as eternal, never will our walk to holiness ever end. The ladder of divine ascent is infinite because Gods love is infinite.
I’d also say that we are to ascend the ladder with the Holy Spirit guiding us. We do not walk alone, we must participate in the work in Christ.
The difference as far as I can tell from the Lutheran position is this.
Lutherans as far as I can tell set up the law vs Christ. But this I dont believe is St Pauls view. St Paul views Christ as defeating death and sees us passing from the dominion of the sin, death and the law to the dominion of Christ, life and grace.
Having being reconciled by the work of Christ, we are in the kingdom of the Lord, we are baptized into His Body, united to Him, given the decalogue, we walk in obedience to Christs law on the path prepared for us sustained by His Body and Blood and healed by His cross since we will stumble and fall, transformed by this walk with the Lord until we attain the promised land.
So this whole justification by faith alone concept makes little sense to us since the transformation occurs in a living relationship with Christ and we in the end can be judged by the Lord EVEN in the camp for disobeying Him (those He never knew, the workers of unrighteousness).
@@EricAlHarb Lutherans believe in distinction between law and Gospel
we unanimously believe, teach, and confess that the Law is properly a divine doctrine, in which the righteous, immutable will of God is revealed, what is to be the quality of man in his nature, thoughts, words, and works, in order that he may be pleasing and acceptable to God; and it threatens its transgressors with God’s wrath and temporal and eternal punishments. For as Luther writes against the law-stormers [Antinomians]: Everything that reproves sin is and belongs to the Law, whose peculiar office it is to reprove sin and to lead to the knowledge of sins, Rom. 3:20,7:7; and as unbelief is the root and well-spring of all reprehensible sins [all sins that must be censured and reproved], the Law reproves unbelief also.
18 However, this is true likewise that the Law with its doctrine is illustrated and explained by the Gospel; and nevertheless it remains the peculiar office of the Law to reprove sins and teach concerning good works.
19 Thus, the Law reproves unbelief, [namely,] when men do not believe the Word of God. Now, since the Gospel, which alone properly teaches and commands to believe in Christ, is God’s Word, the Holy Ghost, through the office of the Law, also reproves unbelief, that men do not believe in Christ, although it is properly the Gospel alone which teaches concerning saving faith in Christ.
Therefore every penitent sinner ought to believe, that is, place his confidence in the Lord Christ alone, that He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25, that He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5:21, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1:30, whose obedience is counted to us for righteousness before God’s strict tribunal, so that the Law, as above set forth, is a ministration that kills through the letter and preaches condemnation, 2 Cor. 3:7, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, Rom. 1:16, that preaches righteousness and gives the Spirit, 1 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 3:2. As Dr. Luther has urged this distinction with especial diligence in nearly all his writings, and has properly shown that the knowledge of God derived from the Gospel is far different from that which is taught and learned from the Law, because even the heathen to a certain extent had a knowledge of God from the natural law, although they neither knew Him aright nor glorified Him aright, Rom. 1:20f.
@@th3manbatista yes that's a good explanation of your understanding of forensic justification.
Our view is different in that Christ redeems all things, all of creation by His work. So all things pass from death, from spiritual Egypt to life, but now we must participate in Christ's work to live or we will by judged unworthy.
So all creation is judged worthy by the work of Christ. There is the language of justification there. Ephesians 2 is absolutely an eschatological passage. Not merely believers.
Our salvation is the ultimately based on our participation after Christs work of setting us free.
So yes we are declared worthy BUT so is the disbeliever in terms of Christs work to reconcile the world. He too is resurrected by the work of Christ.
It's in our participation of being conformed to His image that we are ultimately saved.
If you accept Scripture teaches the forensic and substitutionary aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ work on the Christ, that would appear to be in contradiction to the practice and beliefs of the various Eastern Orthodox organizations that exist today.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 Not at all, as I pointed out we do believe that Christ is a substitution for us in humanity (God will provide the sacrifice). What I think we would disagree with is that Christ is substituted for us individually. The reason I say this is because when we talk about the substitution of Christ we talk about it in terms of humanity, so the Son takes on a universal human nature and takes the penalty of death that we mete out to Him. So Christ is the only perfect human who qualifies to be a worthy offering to God of humanity, and that is how we are reconciled by His work i.e. suffering the penalty of death (thereby being our offering to God, by us killing the Lamb that could not die naturally).
BUT
This work is taken on for all creation! It is by this work that all creation is reconciled to God and all creation goes from the dominion of death to the dominion of Christ himself who defeating sickness, corruption and death for all creation, is King of all.
This is very very very different from the protestant understanding where Christ stands in place for every individual believer. In fact I am uncertain that this notion of Christ being substituted for an individual believer can be supported by the totality of scripture. Even if you are sola scriptura, the only consistent reading of the text is to see our salvation as modelled on the Exodus which is what the Orthodox Church teaches.
I think it is a word concept fallacy to assume that when St. Paul or any of the church fathers speak of substitution or penalty or justification they mean what protestants understand today.
I reject the protestant understanding of justification, substitution and penalty. In essence I claim these words and their meanings for Orthodoxy.
I agree with the understanding of the Church, which has been taught from the beginning and can be seen from genesis to revelation.
I'm a former nondenom evangelical, and your videos helped me decide to become Lutheran instead of Eastern Orthodox, and I'm soon to be confirmed into the LCMS. Thanks for your videos!
PS: Love your Christology series too lol
Same here! Confirmed last year and starting at seminary this summer.
I basically had the same issue, either EO or Confessional Lutheranism.
Thank God for great teachers like Dr. Cooper
Me too!
I too am a former nondenom evangelical, but I just recently became an Orthodox Catechumen. The book “Rock and Sand” by Fr. Josiah Trenham was probably the biggest influence on my decision. If you ever find yourself curious about how Orthodox Christians view Lutheranism, I highly recommend this book! May God bless you
Why didn't you go to the ELCA?
I’ve very much enjoyed your series on the Augsburg Confession, Christology, and Chemnitz. Keep ‘em coming.
Happy (almost) Easter to all! The Lord is risen!
I greatly appreciate this video, I have been inquiring into the Orthodox church off and on for a few years now. After attending Divine Liturgy I was blown away by the beauty of it all and wanted to begin catechism but have been met with barriers due to the distance of the churches being an hour away and the long process of confirmation.
But lately I've been interested in Lutheranism. Now I am attending a local lcms Lutheran church and find myself at a cross roads.
Remember that God looks at the heart, not the denomination you choose. In the end if you repent, put your faith in Christ, are baptized and live to love God and your neighbor then you're on the right track. Don't stress over what tradition you're gonna belong to because in the end when Christ returns there will be one church which in reality will be a culmination of believers from Roman catholic, orthodox, and Protestant faiths. He knows his sheep.
I've been inquiring into Orthodoxy as well for the last few months and even attended a Divine Liturgy once in a trip (I live far away from both Lutheran and orthodox churches), but ultimately the doubts about where I should belong are consuming me. I feel pushed by my ortho friends and at the same time attracted to Lutheranism, and I don't know where I should go. What if I make a wrong decision? Ultimately I'm giving myself a good amount of time studying both traditions and when the time for decision comes (ie when I can attend a parish at least once a week) I pray the Holy Spirit will guide me, not people's opinions. Your message touched my heart as I was listening to this lecture as a way to give myself some peace in my heart. Thanks and God bless you! @@ninjason57
Thanks for doing this, it is valuable to have a Lutheran view of other traditions.
I also enjoyed the Scholastic Lutherans channel doing a review of the debate between Seraphim Hamilton (EO) and Anthony Rogers (Reformed). Seraphim had to get creative with scripture, but ultimately his theosis argument isn't something Lutherans would necessarily disagree with or that would refute PSA.
I attended a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod for many years and I enjoyed it. Eventually I felt the Call to rejoin the Faith of my birth, Eastern Orthodoxy and have been a member for almost 2 decades. IMO, some of the more conservative Protestant denominations do a great job bringing the Word to their members. But, the embracing of abominations by other Protestant denominations has been instrumental is decreasing their membership and encouraging members to seek alternatives who abide by The Word. If it feels wrong to people, it probably is. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church has done an admirable job fighting these 'trends', but other Lutheran denominations not so much. Protestantism in general is decreasing in membership by the direction some of their leadership are taking, people seek the rock-solid and Biblical values to build their personal foundation on. All are welcome in Orthodoxy, if they are seeking a Biblical answer!
While that is true in a Protestant majority country like the United States, where there is a lot of nominalism (and worse), I really wonder about places where the Orthodox Church is the state religion like in Romania for example. On paper it’s 85% Orthodox but there’s actually a lot of nominalism going on even though it’s under one church.
Here We Stand!✝️❤️🌺
People who leave Lutheran Churches do so because they are no longer Lutheran. We still follow our old pastor on TH-cam. We live in a foreign country and there are no Lutheran churches. When in the US we did toy with the idea of joining an Eastern Orthodox Church. I do like the Vespers and the ornate interiors and the Reverence of their worship services I found the sermons were very Christ centered. But when I looked tnto joining I had a conversation on theology with a Bishop. We didn't get beyond Baptism. In the end he called me a Protestant, in a nice way. But clearly there are a lot of differences.
Lutheranism is nonsense
Just of curiosity, what was the issue with baptism?
@@orthodoxbox7004I would never join the Orthodox Church as long as they reject the validity of my Lutheran trinitarian Baptism. Orthodox are like Baptists and Pentecostals in asking me to get rebaptized. I wasn't an atheist all my life. I'm a Lutheran Christian not a Catechumen , not a Christian in training. So if there's no Lutheran Church it would be Rome for me. Even though I have to skip the filioque every time there's a Niceene creed. Solution? Use the Apsotles creed. Oh wait....Orthodox don't like that. And don't like hymns. And I had to lie about fasting. And I'll never have Christmas with my friends....etc
It has grown very tiring in these inter-denominational / tradition dialogues to hear from one side or the other “this is the only way to understand” X, Y, or Z. As Dr. Cooper notes, there can be more than one valid way to understand many such matters. More than one thing can be true in the understanding.
I am reminded of a line by CS Lewis from Mere Christianity: “The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start.”
In this example, it is the “somehow” that is the point of contention, but there can be more than one right answer, more than one effect. God is infinite, and much of His work is not really comprehensible to us. Why we think we can put His work in such tidy, humanly comprehensible, boxes is beyond me.
As a second matter, “we have the Church fathers…” Here again, almost every denomination / tradition can make such a claim - there is not any Church with a continuous connection to ALL church fathers, and most traditions can find evidence in at least some of the Church fathers for their views. I appreciate the context from Athanasius.
Thanks for making this video! I've been waiting for it!
Please Dr. Copper, i deeply appreciate your work on christology. Please consider those of us who really love them and keep going your great work. Thank you !
Literally doing a Masters paper on the communicatio idiomatum and my Thesis is on Orthodoxy’s icons…
You spying on me?
These are all super helpful for me.
I’m now a Lutheranist because of you… Lutheran in Christology and Calvinist in Soteriology. Thanks for all your work, Dr Cooper!
Semi-Lutheran then 😅 and your semi-friends from the double predestination camp will call you semi pelagians 😆 so where do you enjoy eucharist? Weekly / daily presence or 3 times a year symbolic? Asking for a friend
I am Protestant Christian, I married a Greek Orthodox woman. I actually knew very little about Eastern Orthodox before meeting and dating her (and even after marrying, I only then began delving into its history and doctrines). What I learned, at least from my own investigations and from spending time with her Greek family and reading numerous books on the subject by Greek Orthodox theologians), is that while the RCC (Roman Catholic Church) became ever more political and worldly after (and a bit before) the 1054 AD Schism, the EOC (Eastern Orthodox Church) became cemented in its cultural distinctions. In fact, I would say that's its greatest strength as well as its greatest weakness, its rigid cultural distinctions. It is its greatest strength because for those who belong to or ingratiate themselves into that religious culture, it is extremely tight and unwavering; both the RCC and EOC exhibit a culture of "us vs all others" but the EOC tends to take this a bit further than any Catholic I've ever met. Because the RCC has had to contend with the Reformers and modern Protestant doctrinal issues, today's RCC is much more... "open" to debate, so to say. For their own survival, they are forced to be, or they risk losing more adherents to their doctrinal challengers. But because the EOC has been largely cloistered and isolated away from the Reformers and modern Protestant denominations, it has not developed as much openness to debate and dialogue (or a culture that welcomes it) or been challenged in such a way. Today, as of 2023, I see the EOC getting much more limelight and the time is coming (or perhaps has already arrived) that they will, as a distinct religious culture, be forced to contend with the challenges and challengers from contrasting Christian denominations and not just dismiss all others as "all others".
All this to say, I find it all fascinating.
the EOC hasn't been at all cloistered from Protestantism. Why would it be? Protestant missionaries were present in Orthodox lands, in fact they were even encouraged in Transylvania by the Ottomans, for instance. Protestantism simply doesn't make much sense when put against EOC instead of RCC. Hopefully the EOC doesn't become "open to debate" and chooses instead a dignified death than a mutilated "life". The openness for openness sake has largely (well, that and old-fashioned heresy post-1054) ruined Western Christianity. The idea itself that you have to "open to debate" to maintain adepts is moronic, you will estrange the actual believers. You may maintain more adherents in name only.
No, we will still dismiss you as "all others". The Church and Christ cannot be "reformed" or "improved on". We still actually believe that heretics are heretics :) and not just "other forms of Christianity" because Truth doesn't have various forms of Truth, those are called falsehoods :). There is no "religious culture", there is Christianity and various heresies/paganisms etc. You may gain "adherents", but not Orthodox believers.
@@eliegbert8121 The Orthodox Church is mystical though. What are we hiding? Please coherently explain yourself.
@@eliegbert8121 None of the quotes you gave are actual quotes. Yes, Nicea II is a valid council. It was addressing the iconoclast controversy of the time so the council was meant to clarify and prove that Saint veneration is okay (and it is). The early Christians and Jews have been using images for religious purposes in their churches and synagogues, just look up Dura Europos.
I wonder though, because there’s a big shift to EO because of how it hasn’t changed, or at least that’s the claim. I only ever hear glowing reviews of it being the one true apostolic church, and this is from converts from Protestants and RCs. I’m curious if more time in the line light will actually lead to any real criticism of the EO church.
I appreciate you doing this, covering in a fairly systematic fashion, and more articulately than I, points that I have been making in my various discussions over the years with Eastern Orthodox persons.
Great video, very helpful for me. I didn't see how the two ideas could fit together but it all clicked for me with your explanation. Thank you!
Thanks Dr. Cooper. Enjoyed the presentation, very well done. It was helpful listening to you work through St. Athanasius. Hope you’re having a blessed Holy Saturday.
I've seen MANY people be Orthodox for 3, 5, or even 7+ years, and then leave it. But oh no, they have no right to criticize, because they're Apostates...
EO convert here. I’ll admit that when I first saw this, I was a little annoyed by the timing-holy week just started for us, since our Easter is a week behind yours this year. But that’s because I didn’t expect you to start defending a doctrine that I already believe in. St. Athanasius is merely describing the doctrine of justification that St. Paul lays out in Romans-that the penalty of the law (death) is suffered by Christ, thus by being in Christ, the penalty is already taken and we don’t have to die. I was kind of shocked to hear an Orthodox person say that “even the term justification is problematic for the Orthodox,” given that the word “justification” appears in the prayers of our baptismal rite.
Although, I thought that legal and forensic weren’t the same thing. I though that “forensic” justification is particular kind of “legal” justification that entails a reclassification which is not based upon an actual change in the human subject. But in this video, you at least seem to use “forensic” and “legal” interchangeably. If you make a follow-up to this, could you clarify your usage of the terms?
It is true that the East places more emphasis on theosis than on justification, but I think that’s mostly because the East aims to be very practical in its theology-any doctrine that doesn’t have some kind of application tends to be regarded as merely speculative or even useless. Since, in our theology, theosis, or participation in the life of Christ, is the means by which one partakes of his death and resurrection (and, by extension, Christ’s justification, see 1 Timothy 3:16), it is also the means by which legal justification is delivered. That makes theosis more actionable than justification, so that’s where the emphasis gets placed, but it doesn’t mean that justification is absent from our theology. It’s similar to how you can drive your car without knowing how the engine works. If you know how to drive, then your car will get you from point A to point B even if you know nothing about the engine. In this analogy, justification is analogous to the car engine-you could be justified by theosis even if you didn’t know how legal justification works.
It’s also true that a lot of converts to EO refuse to admit any kind of legal aspect to justification, but from what I’ve heard this is a very recent development in Orthodoxy. I am told that a Greek priest, Father John Romanides, was the first to popularize this, as well as the common excoriation of St. Augustine that one often sees in EO these days. But don’t take my word for that, since I’ve not read Fr. Romanides myself. But supposedly, Fr. Romanides was very popular with a lot of evangelical converts to EO, and some of his opinions are now basically taken for granted by a lot of Orthodox in America.
If any of you reading would like to know more about legal justification in Orthodox theology, I’d recommend checking out Seraphim Hamilton. Watch this short video ( th-cam.com/video/ra8wgXvCMtw/w-d-xo.html ) and his debates with Matt Slick and Anthony Rogers to hear the Orthodox doctrine. To me, the main difference between Orthodox and Lutheran thought seems to be the role that sanctification plays in justification. While the Orthodox view is something like
faith -> increasing sanctification -> increasing justification
the Lutheran view is more like
faith -> full immediate justification -> increasing sanctification
I hope that this comment is useful to someone; thanks for reading if you actually made it to the end.
The Lutheran view (with those terms and layout) would be more 'justification->faith->sanctification'
But we also speak broadly of justification and sanctification as referring to the same thing (mystical union or happy exchange).
Justification is also God's work in the old cycle of 'prayer-meditation-trial'; and so a continuously repeated event of drawing into Christ, both seen as grace upon grace and a response to our continually repeated falling from the standard which is Christ.
Like Seraphim/Kabane says, the terms are related facets, not interchangeable things (that is, faith/trust, justification, sanctification, et al).
@@j.g.4942 But sola fide is considered an essential doctrine of Lutheranism, correct? If faith is the instrumental cause of justifcation, then how could justification come first? That would seem to contradrict sola fide whether you take the order to be temporal or logical.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed it's because we're justified in Christ and Christ comes first. We receive Him in trust, by the Holy Spirit, then live the New Life given and empowered by the Holy Spirit (who makes us Holy, or sanctifies us).
I was also thinking a bit more, I think Justification is better described as related to Jesus' work (for it's regarding words, the Word of God) and Sanctification regarding the Holy Spirit's work.
Justification by grace through faith in Christ is the fourth article of the Augsburg Confession, not the first.
@@j.g.4942 I think I detect some category confusion in your line of reasoning, at least if I'm understanding you correctly. It's important to distinguish between the roles that essence and hypostasis/person play in salvation. I can agree in a sense that a person is "saved" before faith as pertains the essence. Christ became fully human, and therefore all humanity is united to him in his death and resurrection because of the shared human essence. But that doesn't mean that every human hypostasis will be saved or justified. A human person must have faith and love in order to appropriate the transformed essence fully to themselves. So the work of Christ done for all humanity--the essential part--comes before faith, but faith belongs to the hypostatic part, because it's a person and not an essence that has faith. If your logic is that the work of Christ causes justification before a human hypostatis has faith, then you seem to sever justification from faith completely.
I would abandon the idea that justification is the work of Jesus while sanctification is the work of the Spirit. An important part of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the three divine persons fully co-operate in everything. Otherwise it becomes difficult to see how they can be one and the same God. For more information on that, I recommend reading "On, Not Three Gods" by St. Gregory of Nyssa.
@@ThreeQuartersCrazed I wouldn't confuse 'saved' and 'justified' either, and as to our use of 'justified and sanctified' it's both in the broad and narrow senses (like 'world' in the Gospels). In the narrow sense we mean by 'justification' the work of God's Word in removing sin and cleaving to Christ who is our righteousness. In the narrow sense we mean by 'sanctification' the work of the Holy Spirit which "cleanses humans and daily makes them more upright and holier" (FC SD 2.35). In the broader senses of both we use them as you seem to, as referring to aspects of the whole work of God in salvation.
"Glorification' is the third 'sibling' in this grouping for us, narrowly referring to the completion of Christ's work and the final passing of evil in the New Creation. Saved could then refer to any of these or all of these (as in 'I was saved, am being saved, shall be saved').
The picture of both justified and sanctified would be being conformed to a standard (say placed inline/just with the cornerstone) and breathing by the life-giving wind respectively.
[I will say the Yank Lutherans have created more distinctions (and confusion) with objective and subjective justification; fortunately in Australia we don't have to deal with that.]
I can agree that the Incarnation affects all humanity (all will rise in the end), and as you say the person is not the same as humanity. So we would go to Baptism, the first Sacrament (tangible thing that unites us to Christ according to His promise). We understand Baptism as the Work of God (Father, Son, Spirit) through the Church/Minister on and for the person.
Basically it's understood that God takes the initiative in salvation (He first makes the world, forms man, gives Law, makes promise, calls Abram etc.), after God's opening of the ears (aligning, or in other language, justifying/righting to His Word) the person in receiving this grace now has the choice to reject or hear (breath in this New Life). Certainly there's tomes that have been written on all that Baptism entails, yet basically for us it's God makes alive in Christ by the Holy Breath/Spirit (justification) and by the Spirit we live this New Life (sanctification); this only when we do not reject Him (or said positively, as we trust we receive the benefits of God's work for us).
Love would then be what living in faith looks like to many, though not all (God's love looks like hatred to those who hate Him).
I won't however abandon the idea that Jesus is the Word of God or that the Holy Spirit is the breath of God; I'm not going to de-person them even where they do work together. We aren't cleaved to the Holy Spirit, nor are we His bride; and we do not breath Jesus our Lord while we do live in Him and He in us. In the narrow view of Justification the Holy Spirit draws us to Christ through whom we can see the Father; in the narrow view of sanctification we breathe with Jesus the Holy Spirit as the Son of the Father.
That being said, I'm certainly still learning and so thank you very much for the testing interaction. I've been brought up in a Lutheran tradition that has a disdain for the more academic, a love for the more pastoral; as well as an affinity more of Semitic than Hellenic (1000 odd years of 'what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem' might do that to us).
Thank you again, and may the Lord Jesus have mercy.
These theology videos are very interesting. I appreciate them a lot.
I understand the appeal of EO to a point. They are historical, yet maintain a separate identity from Rome. I have a friend who currently attends an Assyrian church (though not Assyrian himself) and he has expressed interest in EO.
My issues with EO come from the following areas:
1.) the gospel. While I am glad (as quoted below) that EO as a rule accepts the forensic/penal substitution facet of the atonement, sometimes they seem to be a bit hostile toward it just because Protestants accept it (In one sense it's like an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist snubbing the Apostles' Creed just because Roman Catholics use it). I fully acknowledge that there are other facets to the atonement (including theosis, although I'm not sure specifically what EO means by it), but Scripture is also very clear concerning the substitutionary aspect of the atonement in several places.
2.) Prayers to Saints/Icons-this still smacks too much of idolatry, especially some of their prayers to Mary, which almost deify her. I remember Pastor Will Weedon of the LC-MS reading off one of the Marian prayers, and you very easily could have substituted "God" for the references to Mary in that prayer without skipping a beat. That's very troubling, to say the least. And the impression given with icons is that they almost have a magic quality to them (yes, I realize that EOs may disagree with that description, but that's how it comes across at times).
3.) Toll houses. They sound too much like a substitute for purgatory, and the mere idea of them clashes with Scripture in more than one way.
4.) Overemphasis on mystery. I believe there are mysteries, but the EO seems to categorize as mystery items where Scripture is clear
5.) Equating tradition with Scripture (like Rome)
Heretical prayer: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee.
In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased.
But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit.
This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".
: )
:)
And you will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart. -Jeremiah 29:13
“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. -John 3:16
Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out.
-Acts 3:19
:)
:)
Have you read "The place of blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church" by Fr Seraphim Rose?
The next time you are in Colorado I’d love to hear you do a conversation with a western rite orthodox priest or monk! They have several there. But also I believe there’s plenty of them in the northeast. I think you could have a good conversation about the idea of not needing to leave the west to be orthodox:)
Also about your section on Forenstic V Participatory I agree 100% and that was actually the first thing that I realized when I began speaking theologically with the east was how the caricatures of both parties were almost adopted organically by each side. When I first starting learning about divine simplicity the first articles or books in Google on the eastern side was a complete rejection. But speaking to eastern seminary professors and lots of different parish priests, the overarching reaction I got was a rejection of an absolute divine simplicity that had no room for a distinction between the essence and energies of God. The western theologians I know often have this almost cult-like defense of a divine simplicity that is absolute (which is why most scholarly orthodox I know defend divine simplicity but not an absolute divine simplicity), because to say there are distinctions is incoherent with simply things like persons of the Godhead. There are clearly distinctions 😅 so another one in the essences and energies isn’t denying divine simplicity but also not giving up a system of explanation that has been used for 1700 years.
I benefited greatly from just speaking to orthodox theologians. Gave me a much greater appreciate for both the Lutheran and Orthodox theological traditions.
The priests at Saint Augustine in Denver would be a particularly meta place to do this since it was once the main Lutheran Cathedral for Denver’s “Little Germany” for decades, until the community effectively dispersed, joined other religions and/or died out, leaving it derelict for years until the Antioch archdiocese purchased it and retrofitted it for Western Orthodox use.
@@eldermillennial8330 I’ve been there and spoken to the priest there as well :) a wonderful fellow. Very kind.
I laughed at seeing the background -- that's obviously a Lutheran church office; it has more space for books than for people!
Hope you have a wonderful Easter celebration, Doctor :)
Thanks for a very thoughtful and interesting lecture! All the best Hermerik
I’m orthodox and I also like your videos
Solid and accurate explanation. This is why I'm Lutheran among many other reasons.
It's funny, the bible is not meant to be studied as a work of literature, it is not meant to be studied as a scientific paper or anything like that
Correct. It is meant for the liturgy. Studying and learning scripture is good but protestants take the Bible out of its proper context.
13:30 I hear this most Sundays.
14:41 never discussed and actively avoided because it isn’t in the KJV bible.
26:52 constantly present.
47:21 not true just the majority.
50:44 not untouchable but the eastern and western mindset is different and immersion is the best teacher.
1:01:07 yes!!!
Can’t wait for Filioque !! I really like your stuff, believe it or not, and it’s about the only thing keeping me from leaving the Lutheran Church altogether. Thanks for all the videos!
Thank you for explaining the false dichotomy of forensic versus participation. That clarifies the frustration I have felt trying to comprehend EO.
Purity, piety, obedience, serservice, love , repenting and looking to Jesus Christ we all have in common. Not to mention the Fathef and Holy Spirit and the angels. Most of the church believes in Holy Communion, not rememberence so lets zero in on what we agree on and pray fast wait on God to direct our hearts for directions as too where to worship. Love to all.❤❤❤❤
Not a heavy polemical debate kind of thing? That will never sell on TH-cam and Twitter. :)
And yet will it last?
I am a Protestant convert to Orthodox Christianity. However, I have a long-term respect for Lutheranism and have read writings and have attended a Lutheran church recently. Reconsidering my earlier conversion. But I have a question. What do you feel about the statement "In some way, Lutheranism may be closer to Orthodoxy or Catholicism than certain Protestant groups such as Independent Baptist or Reformed Baptist or Pentecostal. But Lutheranism is really its own entity?" Thanks, in advance.
Yes, that's accurate.
Christ Jesus is risen..
Please continue to produce more detailed content like this. Your videos are a blessing! Thank you, Pastor. Also, could you please continue your series about Sola Fide in the Church Fathers?
Thank you, Dr. Cooper. What are your thoughts (if any) on the Assyrian Church of the East? I'd be interested to hear what you'd have to say about that church body.
I have the same struggle... making the content I want to make, creating content that will get views, and responding to the needs & wants of the subscribers. I've got an idea for you about the latter two. Keep up the good work!
Please write a book on this! Lutheran evaluation of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, for your fine discussion.
I find it interesting that the recent Orthodox convert cites as the main text to justify their transition one from a book of the NT (2 Peter) that did not have the undivided approval of the Ancient Church as to its apostolic authorship. See Eusebius and Jerome. At the same time, there is crickets on a major theme--forensic justification--in a major NT epistle (Romans) that is recognized as apostolic by all. (Also, the divine wrath is certainly a major theme in both OT and NT.) Of course, nothing wrong with what's taught in Second Peter about participating in the divine nature--if understood correctly, i.e. the partaking happens by faith in the gospel, not by silent meditational techniques (e.g.). In fact, it is a beautiful verse. Certainly, not just Walther but also Luther had highly positive things to say based on this verse. But again, if that's the primary reference for one's theology, something seems off--especially if, as Dr. Cooper's nice discussion of Athanasius showed, the testimony of the Ancient Church was so much richer.
What I find interesting is that there is, at least since the 19th century, a movement afoot in Protestantism to discount the "Anselmian" view of the atonement. The angry God who is out to restore his honor by slaying his Son--many seem embarrased or even disgusted by it these days. Liberal theology builds on that, arguing that God didn't need Christ's death and claiming that Jesus was just a victim of Roman injustice, not of God's justice.
It seems that some kind of belief in a non-bloody way to salvation by means of the incarnation and participation would be attractive given the current climate in the West.
I really appreciate the point about the false dichotomy between forensic justification and participation. It just does not hold if you read the New Testament carefully.
Hello, Orthodox Chrisitan here. I already knew that they were more bridges accross your theology and the russian orthodox one than some orthodox youtubers might say. Your video is really interesting. However, regarding Athanasius, in 35:46, you say that "there has to be a payment" I think you are unintentionally forcing your vision on the text, the word "debt" doesn't seem present in the text. In the waiting of more resources from you.
Well, I read Lyndal Roper`s brilliant biography on M. Luther where the man comes out as strongly immature character, both spiritually and psychologically - completely unsuitable as a religious teacher. He could have taught math or architecture without causing traumas BUT NOT ANYTHING to do with the emancipation of the soul. Naturally, his immaturity can be found in his teaching.
My understanding is that in the EO church, veneration of icons is commanded and that those who do not venerate are declared anathema and must be excommunicated. Requiring icon veneration for salvation? Is this not a "different gospel" as warned by Paul in his letter to the Galatians? How did Peter and Paul and others preach the gospel throughout the book of Acts, resulting in salvation for thousands with no mention of icon veneration?
The characterization of the Church by the Apostle Paul as The characterization of the Church by the Apostle Paul as the "Body of Christ" and Christ as Her "Head" (Coloss.1,
24:18) brought the Church into a direct association with Christ. Being joined to the eternal Logos of God, the Church is likewise eternal and pre-existent before the ages, within Christ. Her beginning, therefore, and Her origin are not located in mankind, but in God. The Church "is not of this world" (John 18:36); it is a mystery "withheld from the ages, in God" (Ephes. 3:9).
ICXC NIKA
Dr Paisios
Great episode, and I concur with the others here regarding the Christology series
50:16 No, it doesn't. Orthodox born and raised, in the Romanian Orthodox Bible, Paul's justification term is translated as "made righteous", "corrected". So in Romanian, being a Romance language, we have the word "justificat", which can mean acquitted, declared not guilty; but they don't translate it that way.
I confess that I don’t watch the Christology videos (I don’t really need to), but I am glad that you are doing them.
EO here: During the 17th Century, due to plenty of political factors, clergy were educated at Protestant and Catholic seminaries. Although Protestantism made an influence, the Catholic influence in the Church was immense. St. Peter Mogila (d. 1646), whose Confession and catechism (a slightly modified Jesuit one) was accepted and used by the Orthodox churches, believed in purgatory (rejected by the churches and omitted from the confession), the Catholic approach to priesthood, transubstantiation, original sin, confession, etc. He formed the first Slavic seminary in Kiev and taught completely in Latin. St. Dimitry of Rostov (d. 1709) was apart of a Brotherhood of the Immaculate Conception. The Confession of Dositheus 1672 very much adopted Catholic rhetoric to rebut the reformed confession of Lukaris. Latin was used in Russian seminary until the 1830s. Really since the mid 1800s, the Orthodox have begun to look back into their own history and reflect on perceived "Latin Captivity" of the Orthodox tradition. This continued in the West with the Neo-Patristic synthesis of Florovsky and continues to bear fruit as scholars look to the early Fathers for answers to todays questions. The worst result can be seen in phyletism, where one believes his own culture is superior to all others. (i.e. you have to be Greek or Slavic to really be Orthodox). In the late 20th Century, Fr. John Romanides' approach to the West (i.e. Augustine is basically the cause of everything wrong in the west) and his caricatures of western theology were taught in our American seminaries. Our churches are still struggling with an anti-western mindset, but there are many who are trying to rectify the situation (Fr. Pat Reardon, for example or a blog like Orthodox Christian Theology). Please bear with us, as we try to get our act together. 🙃
15:44 I just read Augustine talking about exactly that in "On Rebuke and Grace"
Check out the western rite orthodox. It has the western culture preserved that may be more familiar if the Eastern Orthodox theology is right.
Going to St. Patrick's (Western Rite) Orthodox Church in Bealeton, VA, is one of the things which showed me that I don't need to hate the Latin theological tradition to become Orthodox.
I am Eastern Rite now, partially because there is no WR parish within reasonable distance, but avoiding Orthodoxy because "I'd have to become Greek/Syrian/etc. and I'm not" is quite dishonest and lazy. The Russian Orthodox Church is one of the largest jurisdictions abroad, and the Russian tradition is quite Western in its music, iconography, etc. My parish is Antiochian, our Patriarch being seated in Syria, and yet my parish is full of converts from various Protestant tradtions and is also quite Western in its aesthetics.
And all of that aside, if one is believes Holy Orthodoxy is the true Church and yet avoids visiting a parish because he doesn't like the aesthetics, that is an issue with his own soul, not with the Orthodox Church.
The biggest conflict is whether or not Death is a consequence or a punishment for sin.
Thank you, Dr. Cooper, wonderful in-depth look. And I'm glad you balance popular topics with important topics. If oil painters allowed themselves to be influenced by online votes, as they worked on a painting, there would be no more masterpiece paintings produced. They would've told Van Gogh he used too much yellow. Sometimes we need to conform to the expert to get the good stuff.
Not surprising that protestants have no clue, like this professor, of Orthodox theology when even majority of orthodox christians do not understand it at all. Orthodox theology is very simple. First, you need to truly repent (do the fruits of worthy repentance) and then clean your heart with the Grace of God and become perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect. Which protestant reach this state? Which one was or is or will be blessed since he/her became pure in heart and reached perfection? Just one example please. In Orthodox church there are multiple such examples and they are called saints. Not only are the saints events of past time but they are alive and walking today.
When we die and will stand before the Throne of The King of the Kings, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, for the judgment what, you think, we are going to be judged: how many books we read about theology and how well we understood them? No my friend. We will be asked if we followed Christ Commandments. I know I did not. Did you follow it? I know you did not. Christ said, whoever keeps my Commandments he will not sin and My Father and I will come to him and We will dwell in him. You certainly are not such a person as I am not. If you were, your mindset and your preaching would not have been any different from those of the real saints of Orthodox Church. Those saints not only kept the main commandments (the ones that reach man asked Jesus Christ to be saved about) but also, to become perfect, they sold everything they had and followed The Lord. Do you have such examples in Protestantism? I have never heard of it.
The word theologian denotes somebody who speaks of God. God, as true theologians teach, is Uncreated, Inconceivable, Incomprehensible, Indescribable and Immaterial. How can anybody speak of such God if he/she has never been revealed of this by God himself? Anybody who speaks of God (meaning speaks of theology) without having revelational experience is demoniac theologian by Orthodox definition. Orthodox saints say this clearly that all theology which is not revealed by God himself is demonic theology. In this included are all types of scholasticism, or theologizing with logical arguments. This is Orthodox theology for dummies like me in a nutshell. This is also why the author of this video cannot understand Saint Athanasius the Great. St Athanasius was not just mere man. He was real saint, Sanctified by All Holy Trinity himself. He was talking out of revelational experience and not just from reading books.
Jesus is risen!
Your book on Union with Christ is an excellent treatment on theosis. Loved the book!
Thanks!
FINALLY A RESPONSE TO EASTERN ORTHODOXY!!!
More of a response to portions of an essay by AG Roeber than a response to Orthodoxy.
Awesome helpful video! Thank you!
Thanks!
Now i kind feel bad for some content demands that i made. But still, bring more Gerhard.
Yeeey😍
Former orthodox member here
I was waiting for your objections.😊
@Anomie comment history reflects creepy insecurity. 😂 take a day off brother.
Apostate eh? You will not inherent salvation without the ark of the covenant which is the body of the Church
@@shiningdiamond5046 Yikes. Please don't do this.
@@shiningdiamond5046And you’ll be judged in the way you judge others. Presumption is a sin. Grow up.
What I think you would find interesting in a discussion on lutherism vs orthadoxcy is their stance on sola scriptural.. I would love to see how you answer their polemics
At around the 30:00 min mark you talk about a key issue that led me to stop my EO catechism: The Orthodox ignoring the forensic language of Scripture. They say they're the Fullness but yet ignore or outright reject a central tenet of Scripture - its teachings on Justification, propitiation, satisfaction of wrath, etc. These are CLEARLY taught in Scripture. I never could understand the Orthodox disposition to ignore penal substitutionary language (they don't care for Ransom Theory either) that is CLEARLY all throughout Scripture.
But see you can do that if you don't have Sola Scriptura. When the Bible isn't your highest or infallible authority, then you can ignore certain Scriptural themes, or simply claim that anyone with an alternate interpretation is wrong because they don't have your "Tradition," as the Orthodox do.
I have some Orthodox friends who have the same problems but decided to remain Orthodox and just be isolated with their own doctrinal and theological differences. There is enough good there for them to stay. And I totally get that. Sometimes fellowship and community is more important than agreeing on everything doctrinally.
But I personally couldn't stay in EO. Im too impressionable. I need to be around other Christians who are at least sometimes gonna talk justification and penal substitutionary atonement, etc. I need to be in an environment where Justification by Faith is going to be taught or spoken of at least ONCE in a while. Else over time I'll lose my own footing in the faith.
Tbh there was just too much cognitive dissonance for me during catechism to remain Eastern Orthodox. And I really, really *wanted* to be Orthodox, at points. I really am starting to see evidence that Orthodoxy is Semi-Pelagian or at least "Pelagian influenced," (I don't think it a coincidence that the Orthodox don't view the Council of Orange as Ecumenical).
At the end of the day, like you said Dr Cooper, it's just too steep a climb to be Western and rooted in Augustinian thought, and become Orthodox. It is a long, arduous, and dangerous trek across the Tiber.
Lutheran here who graduated from a Jesuit college in the 1980s. I still have _On the Incarnation_ from my Theology class which was taught by an Armenian Orthodox layman. 😀
Just to be clear I have ecclesiastical anxiety being that there are things I agree with the Orthodox on and things I agree with the Protestants on. With that said one of the problems with the Western atonement is that it makes God “need” something. God being God is not in “need” of anything so He does not need his “wrath” or “honor” appeased. He lacks nothing. The crucifixion paid our debt (death) but it was out of His love and not His “need.” At least that is how I understood Orthodoxy theology. I could be wrong about it so I apologize to any Orthodox person if I got that wrong. How would Protestants respond to that charge? If there is a book or website that would be great. I’m open to learning.
I know of a video series you could watch. It's what helped me return to Christianity altogether, and without it, I probably would not have done so. Start with:
"God Was Not Ruling the World"
th-cam.com/video/rrZeKqfvRBs/w-d-xo.html
Time-stamp
12:40 - western view of perfection in the Garden
Thanks for the video, doctor, I do enjoy your content. Although we broke his law, we Orthodox just dont see the "penalty", we see the consequence of death for us, in that sin. We dont see the debt owed aspect of substitutionary atonement. The punishment of death is the result of sin, not something we are paying to God. Its just a bit of a different phronima.
❤❤Glad for discussing,,there is also the Oriental churches that maybe you could discuss.
Thank you. Just what I needed.
not sure if you've read it, but Stephen Holmes' "Quest for the Trinity" does a pretty good job of refuting that "east and west have different trinitarian theologies" idea, and critiques Zizioulas specifically. Its worth a read!
Excited to hear about the filioque
We will all be Orthodox when we are dead😀👍
if by orthodox you mean straight doctrine -- accurate -- then yes, we will be orthodox. :)
You've already got the beard!
I've known Lutherans that say they feel more comfortable worshiping with EO or RC members than people like me (confessional 1689 Baptist). I find that strange and don't understand it...but I guess it has to do with their personal and/or denominational preference to particular views of the sacraments above other doctrines, possibly?
God's Work and Promise in Baptism and Holy Communion are central to Lutheran practise. We see these as where God has promised to meet us and make us one with Jesus; or where we are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Any disagreement on this fundamental understanding is uncomfortable for many Lutherans (variously seen as rejecting an aspect of God's work and word, or calling God a liar).
Which is why Luther said, "better blood with the papists than mere wine with the fanatics" and referring to Calvinists and Anabaptists, "they are of a different spirit".
There's a reason more than just regional distance that there was never one 'protestant' tradition.
I would really like to know how the Hindu mudras (hand signs ended up in Iconography) haven't heard an answer yet. If anyone knows. I would appreciate it
Are you saying all hand signals in Christian iconography originated with Hinduism? I've always wondered about it, too, but didn't know it had a singular origin like that.
@@dorinamary7863 I wouldn't say that it all goes back to Hinduism but there is most likely the same source of occult mysticism behind both of them, i.e. mystery Babylon. But yes these hand signals are conveying some esoteric meaning one way or the other. I just haven't found anyone who has any content about this subject. I would love to know if you find some answers. Feel free to send them this way. I think the take away is that paganism infiltrated Christian art, beliefs, and practices. God bless
Please speak on the 9th Plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox joint commission (1998) Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy.
I wonder why Scripture has to be so complex and mind-boggling. It should be so much simpler to understand.
I believe it is in the Orthodox Church. Western scholasticism views scripture as something to dissect.
The in depth christology videos were very very helpful.
Vicarious Satisfaction is the idea of Sin-Offering. From my research and dialogue with Matt Fenn, we have to distinguish between death through the lens of punishment and death through the lens of payment. Christ dies after living a perfect life IN ORDER TO offer His life as a satisfaction for the worlds sins.
Christ makes payment, so we aren't punished. Christ isn't... technically punished.
God made Jesus, who knew no sin, to be the sin offering for us. I'm bemused by the idea that Jesus wasn't punished on our behalf.
@Bob Taylor Sin-offering propitiates punishment. Christ is not punished in V.S.
In this view, the lamb is not a scapegoat but an offering to forestall. Which is the more proper understanding of the Temple sacrifices, the lamb is killed not as symbol of substitutionary punishment, but as a component of offering the first fruits of our livelihood.
For Anselm, it would be unjust for God to "punish" an innocent party, but since Christ is fully human, and humans owe God infinite honor, it is just to demand a sacrifice of honor/obedience to the law from Christ (as it is just to demand it from all creation), and since Christ is the only one who can fullfill this demand, he lives a perfectly obedient life and gives his life as a payment for the sin of the world -- and since he's divine, the offering is of infinite worth and _can_ be applied to all.
It's the difference between paying someone's fine (if they can't afford it) and going to jail in their place. Christ is the infinitely wealthy man.
@@bobtaylor170 it’s the difference between Christ willingly taking on and bearing our sins vs having them unjustly thrown upon him. The Orthodox perspective is the former.
@@harrygarris6921 do you think that Protestants believe there is dissent in the Godhead? Of course, Jesus knew what His primary purpose in being made Incarnate was. That doesn't mean he was forced to do it. He did ask that the cup be taken from Him, but the Father said no.
What I think this is really all about is the Catholic and Orthodox rejection of justification by faith.
@Bob Taylor I lean toward 'vicarious satisfaction' and lean toward rejecting 'penal substitution' (which I'm carefully distinguishing), and I'm a Lutheran-Protestant.
In either system, the sins of the world are paid for -- justification by faith trusts that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient for my salvation, that is an irrelevant issue to the model used. The concern of V.S. is to render God just in the sacrifice by not punishing the innocent, but rather in Him merely receiving the sacrifice of His Son as a sufficient payment to cancel out our sin.
For V.S., the direction of the cross is an upward offering of payment. In P.S., the direction of the cross is a downward outpouring of punishment.
This is like having Anthony Rogers and Seraphim Hamiltom both called in to the headmasters office to be told off, 😄
Thank you and happy easter!
Read the Small Paraklesis. This may save some a lot of time...
To the Theotokos, let us run now most fervently,
As sinners and lowly ones,
Let us fall down in repentance,
Crying from the depths of our soul:
Lady, come and help us,
Have compassion upon us;
Hasten now for we are lost
In the host of our errors;
Do not turn your servants away,
For you alone are a hope to us.
O Theotokos, we shall never be silent.
Of your mighty acts, all we the unworthy;
Had you not stood to intercede for us
Who would have delivered us,
From the numerous perils?
Who would have preserved us all
Until now with our freedom?
O Lady, we shall not depart from you;
For you always save your servants,
From all tribulation.
Yeah, that's a problem.
I don't see the problem. It was by her will that Christ became Incarnate, all that Christ did is, at least in part, a product of her will; she is the great hope of mankind, for she brought salvation into the world.
@@costakeith9048
It's one thing to acknowledge and honor her memory. It's another to use the most extreme language possible and address her like a goddess and entreat her as if she's an active mediator between God and Mankind.
Also, alternating worship of the Triune God and a creature named Mary is completely foreign to the monotheistic religion of the Old Testament and the Holy God of Israel. It's clear as day to those who have read the Bible. It really is the most problematic thing that exists in Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not a small issue as some like to pretend. Language matters.
@@ro6tiLanguage does matter and if you look carefully at the language used you will see there is nothing that cannot be theologically justified. We do not worship her as a goddess, that line is never crossed. But we make no apologies about using every epitaph fitting for the virgin mother of our King and our God who by her very word did consent to the Will of He Who is, thus bringing Salvation into the world in the Person of the Incarnate Word, who did take her very nature and very flesh upon Himself, thus standing before God as the sole representative of all mankind: for He took flesh from no other man, but by the sacrificing of the flesh received from her did He bring salvation to all. And, thus, she is the new and greater Eve, for while Eve gave birth to all men, save Adam, the Theotokos gave birth to the Pre-Eternal Word and, thus, to the salvation of all mankind.
You may be uncomfortable with such language for various cultural reasons, but there is no lie in it. These things are natural and unavoidable consequences of the Divinity of our Lord and the salvific role of the Cross and the Incarnation. If you deny she is the Mother of God, you deny that Christ is God. If you deny she brought salvation to all the world, you deny the Cross.
@@costakeith9048
This is NOT a natural/unavoidable consequence of the Divinity of the Lord. If so, Paul would've mentioned Mary's name at least once in all his writings. It's blasphemy to the consciences of many believers in the Triune God and worth dividing over.
Hello, I am new here. I wanted to ask if there is a possibility of making a video on Kierkegaard's theology